Appeal No. 2006-0895
Application No. 09/902,515
email messages defined by the claims. Since most transmitted
data including email messages, once considered at the machine
level, are sent as data packets, the disclosure of Carr would
include applying different compression methods to two different
fields within an email. Therefore, although Carr describes
transmitting data packets between different computers, at a
higher level, such data packets correspond to specific forms of
data such as emails and other types of messages. This position
is consistent with Appellant’s disclosure specifying the
application of different code words to a message in order to
encode the data in each field (specification, pages 5, 21 and
22).
Therefore, we find the Examiner’s reading the first and the
second fields within the data packets recited in claims 1 and 22
on the compression of the data packets of Carr to be reasonable
and consistent with the reference disclosure and Appellant’s
specification analyzed above. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102
rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 4, 5, 22, 25 and 26
argued together as one group, over Carr is sustained.
With respect to the rejection of claim 9, Appellant presents
arguments related to the presence of the first and the second
fields within an email message which are similar to the arguments
addressed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, as Carr
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007