Appeal No. 2005-2528
Application No. 09/576,093
The examiner appears to recognize the weakness in the rejection that is set out
in the Final Rejection. The examiner now deems the entry input received from the user
to be the “new” email address, which is cached, as shown in step 507 of Figure 5.
(Answer at 4-5.) Appellants argue, however, that a dialog box asking the sender
whether the sender’s address book should be updated with the new email address of
the recipient is not “responsive to the entry” of the information as claimed. (Reply Brief
at 3-4.) We agree with appellants.
Under the examiner’s latest interpretation of the reference, the content of the
“new” email address entry is purported to be at lines 9 through 10 of column 7. (Answer
at 4.) That section of the reference describes occurrences at the sending device after
reception of the intended recipient’s new email address from the address-change
server. Nielsen col. 6, ll. 40-55. The sender’s email program may display a dialog box
which asks whether the message that could not be delivered to the recipient’s old email
address should be sent to the new email address. Col. 6, l. 56 - col. 7, l. 5.
In yet another embodiment, the dialog box also contains a checkbox
(default: checked) asking the sender whether the sender’s personal
productivity applications (e.g., the sender’s address book) should be
updated with the new email address of the recipient. If the sender leaves
this checkbox checked, and if the old email address was in the sender’s
address book, then the sender’s email program also updates the sender’s
address book file. If the recipient’s old email address was not in the
sender’s address book then it is added to the senders [sic; sender’s]
address book.
Col. 7, ll. 6-15. The sender’s address book may then be updated with the recipient’s
new email address. Col. 7, ll. 16-25; Fig. 5.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007