Appeal 2007-1355
Application 09/735,499
for this rejection because we find it is the broadest independent claim before
us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants argue that Helfman does not disclose a system “with the
capability of determining which messages are both new and have not had a
notification cleared,” as claimed (Br. 9, emphasis in original).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner argues that identifying the
status of an e-mail message (e.g., whether the message is new) involves a
determination that the e-mail message is unread which also indicates the e-
mail message has a notification that has not been cleared (Answer 10).
Specifically, the Examiner argues that Fig. 3A of Helfman provides a list of
message notifications including indications of messages that are new (i.e.,
unread) and for which notification has not been cleared. The Examiner
points to the “unread/tot” column in window 40 of Fig. 3A that indicates the
number of unread messages (Answer 11-12).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a single prior art reference
that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim
invalidates that claim by anticipation. Perricone v. Medicis Pharm., 432
F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 77 USPQ2d 1321, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing
Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976
F.2d 1559, 1565, 24 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
After carefully considering the evidence before us, we agree with the
Examiner that Helfman discloses a user interface providing a list of message
notifications, as clearly shown in Fig. 3A. Specifically, we find Helfman
discloses a list of message notifications associated only with those messages
determined to be new (see Fig. 3A, window 40, i.e., the “unread/tot” column
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013