Appeal No. 2005-2528
Application No. 09/576,093
Instant claim 1 recites, “receiving an entry input by a user at the sending device,
the entry comprising sending information that identifies a destination to which
information is to be sent by the sending device. . . .” In Nielsen, the user’s entry does
not comprise sending information that identifies a destination to which information is to
be sent by the sending device, which sending information is later cached in the final
step of the claim. In Nielsen, that sending information is generated by the sender’s
email program, or reproduced by the sender’s email program from the new address
provided by the address-change server. Independent claims 15 and 20 recite
limitations similar to those of claim 1. Independent claim 9 requires that the user-
entered information comprises “sending information, and determining the identity of the
user from the entry. . . .” Nielsen does not describe the relevant user entry as
comprising information from which the identity of the user may be determined.
We thus agree with appellants that Nielsen fails to disclose or suggest at least
the above-noted features of the instant claims. Reilly does not remedy the basic
deficiencies of the Nielsen reference. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 5-10, 12-24, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Nielsen and Reilly.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007