Appeal 2007-1355
Application 09/735,499
invention. In particular, we note that Helfman discloses “In one form of the
invention, a recipient of e-mail messages creates multiple mailboxes …”
(col. 1, ll. 41-42, emphasis added). Therefore, we find that Helfman does
not fairly disclose a “unified messaging system” in accordance with the
plain meaning of the term “unified” and further consistent with Appellants’
Specification. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4
as being anticipated by Helfman.
Claims 5 and 6
Because claims 5 and 6 each depend upon claim 4, we will also
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same reasons
discussed supra with respect to claim 4.
Claims 3 and 9-11
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3 and
9-11 as being unpatentable over Helfman in view of Sylvan. Since
Appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these
claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will select claim 3
as the representative claim for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Appellants argue that Sylvan does not overcome the deficiencies of
Helfman, as previously argued (Br. 16).
In response, we find no deficiencies in Helfman except regarding the
“unified messaging system,” as discussed supra with respect to claim 4.
Because such “unified messaging system” is not recited in claims 3 and 9-
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013