Appeal No. 2006-2090
Application No. 10/004,925
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 30.
Donohue describes a system for monitoring and maintaining an acceptable use policy for
network communications (e.g., chat sessions) (Abstract; paragraph 0004). A chat session is
monitored, stored and searched for certain expressions.
The examiner acknowledges (answer, page 5) that Donohue does not expressly disclose a
registry of destination users, and the making of a transcript of the chat session if the destination
user is not an approved destination user. Notwithstanding the lack of such a registry in
Donohue, the examiner concludes (answer, pages 6 and 7) that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add a registry to Donohue since
“destination users are part of the text of a communication message.”
Appellants argue (brief, page 17; reply brief, page 4) that looking for specific text in a
communicated message is not the same as searching a registry for an approved destination user.
We agree with the appellants’ argument. The text in Donohue may contain a destination user,
but the name of the destination user is not used to determine whether the destination user is an
approved participant in the chat session. For this reason, the obviousness rejections of claims 1
through 8, 10 through 18, 20 through 28 and 30 is reversed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007