Appeal 2007-0288
Application 10/715,408
We find that the portions of the original Specification and claims,
cited by Appellants, address the actuation of the send function rather than
“not created by a user.” Appellants’ arguments also go to a “non-user”, but
the claim language at issue is “not created by a user.” Furthermore, we find
a distinction between an owner or non-owner as in the Specification and a
user or non-user in the claim language. Therefore, Appellants' argument is
not persuasive.
We also find Appellants’ arguments concerning genus/species do not
address the composition or creation of the message by a non-user.
Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive. We have considered all
of Appellants’ arguments advanced with respect to the objection to the
Specification as they apply to our new grounds of rejection for a lack of
written description, and we do not find them persuasive. Therefore, we have
set forth a rejection above.
DECISION
In summary, we have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of all the
claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims
1-13 is reversed.
We have entered a new grounds of rejection against claims 1-13 under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
As indicated supra, this decision contains a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (amended effective September 13, 2004, by
final rule notice 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat.
& Trademark Office 21 (September 7, 2004)). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013