Ex Parte Ganesan et al - Page 7



                Appeal No. 2005-2744                                                                           
                Application No. 09/849,979                                                                     

                Appellants’ specification states on page 62:                                                   
                      The presentation of the e-card may be accomplished in one of at least two                
                      ways, as will also be understood by one skilled in the art.  In a first way,             
                      the e-mail message sent to the recipient may comprise the entire e-card.                 
                      That is, the e-mail message is the e-card.   Or, in a second way, the e-mail             
                      may contain a hyper-link back to the processing agent 130.  By following                 
                      this link, the e-card is displayed to the recipient via a unique web page.               
                             The contents of the e-card, whether presented to the recipient in                 
                      the first way or the second way, inform the recipient that he has received a             
                      gift, as well convey any additional text specified by the donor.  The e-card             
                      may contain text informing the recipient of the amount of the gift payment               
                      and the identity of the donor.                                                           
                We find no disclosure in appellants’ specification that an e-card may contain a                
                background, images or music as argued is known in the art and alleged by                       
                reference to the TechEncylopedia document.  Rather, appellants’ specification                  
                appears to identify the key feature of the e-card is that it conveys a message to              
                the recipient concerning a gift and additional text.  Further, we note that even if            
                we were to accept appellants’ asserted definition, the definition can not be                   
                applied to identify that which is and is not an e-card as it identifies features which         
                may be in an e-card, not features which make the e-card unique from other                      
                electronic messages.  Thus, we find that the scope of the limitation of an                     
                “electronic greeting card including a notification of the monetary gift” as including          
                an e-mail message1 which contains a text message.  We do not find that the                     
                scope of the limitation is narrowed to the e-card having additional features such              
                as a background, images or music.                                                              
                                                                                                              
                1  Note to avoid confusion, we refer to “e-mail” as a system to deliver messages               
                and “e-mail message” to refer to individual documents delivered by e-mail.                     
                                                      7                                                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007