Appeal No. 2006-2742
Application No. 10/115,138
does not represent the unique ID included in an e-mail address
(brief, pages 10-13). Appellants further argue that the
rejection is apparently predicated upon interpreting the recited
Afile including an e-mail address, which includes the unique ID
generated@ as meaning that the file includes the unique ID and
the file includes the e-mail address (brief, page 14).
Appellants, however, point out that the correct interpretation of
the claim based on proper rules of grammar requires the generated
unique ID be included in the e-mail address, and not in the file
that also includes the e-mail address, as suggested by the
Examiner (brief, pages 14-15).
The Examiner responds by asserting that the claims do not
require that the e-mail address include the unique ID generated
by the unique ID generating unit (answer, page 15). Relying on
Figure 12 of Talati, the Examiner concludes that the e-mail
record of Talati is a file that also includes an e-mail address
and a unique transaction identifier (id.).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007