Appeal No. 2005-2744
Application No. 09/849,979
Claim 66 recites the limitation “wherein the request is received from an
electronic greeting card service.” Claim 77 contains a similar limitation. The
examiner asserts, on page 6 of the answer:
The Examiner submits this language reads on the simple command that is
issued when Van Dusen transmits a purchased email greeting card. This
is because sending the email greeting card to the recipient requires the
greeting card service to submit a request to the recipient’s Internet service
provider such that the greeting card is delivered to the recipient.
Appellants argue, on page 12 of the reply brief, that the examiner’s position
overlooks “the claim’s requirement that the request received from the electronic
greeting service must be processed to generate an electronic greeting card
having a notification of the monetary gift.” We concur with appellants. Claim 66
depends upon claim 58 which requires the “processing the received request to
generate the electronic greeting card including a notification of the monetary gift.”
The example cited by the examiner does not present evidence of how the
recipient’s Internet Service Provider (ISP) generates the greeting card, rather it
appears from the examiner’s example that the ISP merely forwards the electronic
greeting card. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
66 and 77 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).
Claims 67 and 78.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007