Appeal 2007-0964
Application 09/984,929
sustain the rejection of these claims. We find for the Appellant in that we do not
find that the Examiner has shown that claims 22 through 30 and 34 are directed to
non-statutory subject matter. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Further, we find for the Appellant as we do not find that
the Examiner has shown that Terada teaches or suggests saving said distribution
list at the time of distributing said electronic document. Thus, Appellant’s
arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 36
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) or 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we do not sustain the rejection
of this claim. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KIS
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
P. O. BOX 272400
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013