Appeal No. 2006-2513
Application No. 10/060,782
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Mar. 18, 2005) and the Examiner=s
Answer (mailed Apr. 4, 2006) for a statement of the examiner=s position and to the Brief
(filed Aug. 24, 2005) and the Reply Brief (filed Jan. 17, 2006) for appellant=s position
with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Meister and Sheldon -- claims 1, 2, 9, 16
The examiner finds that Meister teaches the steps of instant claim 1 except for
the Aaddition signal@ being selected from the group consisting of the A+@ symbol and the
A&@ symbol. Meister teaches the use of a comma (e.g., Fig. 3) as an addition symbol.
The rejection further relies on Sheldon, which teaches that various characters may be
used as delimiters in electronic messaging systems to assist in the processing of e-
mails. Sheldon col. 7, l. 57 - col. 8, l. 4. The examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious, within the meaning of ' 103, to have used a delimiter such as the A+@ or
the A&@ as claimed.
Appellant contends there is no disclosure or suggestion in Sheldon to use one of
the claimed symbols. In response to the examiner=s taking of official notice that any
symbol or combination of symbols can be (or could have been, at the time of invention)
programmed as delimiters, appellant contends that the official notice has been
traversed and the examiner should provide evidence in support of the allegation. (Brief
at 8-11.)
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013