Appeal No. 2006-2513
Application No. 10/060,782
displayed at each destination. (Brief at 20-21.) In response to the examiner=s findings
in the Answer (at 9), appellant holds that the identified section of Meister does not teach
the claimed deletion of the operation symbols. (Reply Brief at 14.)
Meister teaches at column 5, lines 17 through 27 that when the addressee is
deleted, the system removes any delimiters from the header field that need to be
removed. We consider the reference to provide ample support for the examiner=s
finding that Meister, when combined with Sheldon and Minich, teaches deletion of the
operation symbols as claimed. We are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim
14, and thus sustain the rejection.2
Claims 17-21
Appellant contends that claim 17 is patentable over the references because the
combination does not teach or suggest assigning a new group name to destinations for
registration in a destination list. (Brief at 21.) The examiner finds that the use of an
address book by Meister inherently teaches assigning group names to destinations in a
destination list (Answer at 9), that the presence of both group and individual e-mail
names and aliases as used by Meister indicates that e-mail address groups may be
formed and given group names and aliases (id. at 14), and that widely used e-mail
programs are well known in the art to include such features as creating and managing
2 We also note that claim 14 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, second paragraph, in that Athe
operation symbols@ lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013