Appeal No. 2005-2744
Application No. 09/849,979
On page 9 of the brief, appellants argue that Van Dusen does not teach
further transmitting the electronic greeting card to a non-designated recipient as
is recited in claims 63 and 74. Appellants argue that the teachings of Van Dusen,
which the examiner is relying upon, do not teach re-transmitting the electronic
greeting card, but rather allowing the recipient to designate an account to which
the money should be applied.
We concur with appellants for the reasons stated on page 9 of the reply
brief. Claim 63 includes the limitation of “further transmitting, via the network, the
transmitted electronic greeting card including the hyper-link and the notification of
the monetary gift to a non-designated recipient.” Claim 74 contains a similar
limitation. The examiner states, on pages 4 and 5 of the answer, “Van Dusen
also provides that its email greeting card may be sent to multiple, non-designated
recipient accounts” and that this feature meets the “further transmitting feature.”
We disagree with the examiner’s assertion. The independent claims identify that
the designation of the recipient, the e-mail address, is made by the donor, the
scenario the examiner relies upon does not change the recipient of the e-mail
message, but rather allows the recipient to select one of the multiple accounts
associated with the e-mail address that should be credited with the money from
the gift. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 63
and 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).
Claim 75.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007