Appeal No. 2005-2744
Application No. 09/849,979
asserted by the examiner. Nonetheless, applying the examiner’s rationale fails to
teach the limitations of the claim, because considering completing the form of
figure 2 to be the step of generating the electronic greeting car, Van Dusen then
has no step equivalent to the claimed “receiving … a request to send an
electronic greeting card.” Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 68 and 79 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e).
Rejection of claims 58, 65, 67 through 69 and 75, 76, 79 and 80 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dusen in view of Lenhart.
Claim 80
Appellants, argue on pages 15 through 17 of the brief, that Van Dusen
does not teach generating an electronic greeting card as recited in claim 80.
Further, appellants argue, that while Lenhart does generally teach electronic
greeting cards, Lenhart does not teach or suggest electronic greeting cards with
monetary gifts.
We disagree with appellants. As stated supra, with respect to the
rejection of claim 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e), we consider the scope of the
claim term electronic greeting card to encompass Van Dusen’s teaching of an e-
mail message. Further, as anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, we sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claim 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 58, 65, 67 through 69, 75 and 79
On page 17 of the reply brief appellants state “based upon the arguments
and evidence presented above with respect to the anticipation rejection of claims
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007