Appeal 2006-2828
Application 09/683,995
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon supports the Examiner’s rejection of
the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.
Claims 1-24
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24 as being
anticipated by Budge. Since Appellants’ arguments with respect to this
rejection have treated these claims as a single group which stand or fall
together, we will consider independent claim 1 as the representative claim
for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also (Br., 3). “For
purposes of this appeal only, Applicant groups all pending claims 1-24
within a single group, and selects claim 1, as representative of these claims.”
Appellants argue that Budge does not disclose a first email messaging
program on which a composing user composes a message and records media
and which sends the message over the network (Br. 4).
Appellants further argue that Budge does not disclose a second email
messaging program receiving the message over the network and playing
back the media upon the user viewing the message (id.).
Appellants clarify their interpretation of the claim language by stating:
Whereas, the invention of claim 1 is limited to a single
program, an e-mail messaging program, both recording
media and sending a message (including the media) over
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013