Appeal No. 2006-0895
Application No. 09/902,515
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 16, 23 and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carr and Unger.
Claims 6-8, 15 and 27-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carr, Unger and Ackley.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of
Appellant and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made
by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
brief have not been considered (37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 14, 22,
25 and 26
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner reads the claimed
first and second field within an email on the header and the text
of an email as taught by Carr (answer, page 4). Regarding claims
1 and 22, Appellant argues that Carr merely discloses static and
dynamic fields within a data packet (brief, page 6) and has
nothing to do with an email message nor the first and second
fields within that email message (brief, page 7). In response,
the Examiner asserts that the transmitted data in Carr are email
messages since they are transmitted over a communication network
(answer, page 10). The Examiner further argues that such
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007