Appeal No. 2005-2744
Application No. 09/849,979
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejections and the arguments of appellants and the examiner, for the
reasons stated infra we sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 58, 60 through
62, 65, 67, 69, 71 through 73, 76, 78, 80 and 81. However, we will not sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 59, 63, 64, 66, 68, 70, 74, 75, 77 and 79.
Rejection of claims 58, 63, 65 through 69 and 74 through 79 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 (e)
Claims 58, 65, 69 and 76
Appellants argue that claims 58 and 69 recite limitations requiring the
generation of an electronic greeting card including a notification of the monetary
gift and that the term “electronic greeting card” has a special meaning. (Brief
page 8). As such, appellants argue Van Dusen’s message “Happy Birthday
Mom!” does not make Van Dusen’s message the equivalent to an electronic
greeting card. (Brief pages 8 and 9). Appellants state, on page 9 of the brief:
Exemplary electronic greeting cards are currently available at
numerous Web sites, some of which have been in operation now for many
years, and the phrase “electronic greeting card(s)”, also known as “e-
card(s)” is a term or art, which has an established and well known
meaning to those skilled in the art. The phrase “electronic greeting
cards(s) “ is defined in the TechEncyclopedia, hosted by TechWeb at
techweb.com/encyclopedia/defineterm?term=e-card, to be a particular
type of message that “in addition to your own text, e-cards allow different
backgrounds, images and music to be used.”(emphasis added). Indeed, a
similar description of an “electronic greeting card” is found in the Lenhart
reference, which is also applied in finally rejecting claims of this
application. Thus, an “electronic greeting card” is understood by those
skilled in the art to be the electronic equivalent to a paper greeting card.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007