Appeal 2007-1409
Application 09/823,626
REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Tabb US 5,787,416 Jul. 28, 1998
Perell US 2001/0047347 A1 Nov. 29, 2001
(filed Dec. 4, 2000)
Woloshin US 2002/0026410 A1 Feb. 28, 2002
(filed Mar. 1, 2001)
Gifford US 2002/0131561 A1 Sep. 19, 2002
(filed May 6, 1999)
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1 through 28 and 30 through 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tabb in view of Woloshin and
Gifford.
Claims 29 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tabb in view of Woloshin and Gifford and Perell.
ISSUES
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are in error. Appellant asserts that neither Tabb, Woloshin, nor
Gifford individually or in combination teaches the claimed feature of
generating an electronic mail message in response to “determining that the
particular agent has enabled notification of account changes.” (Br. 12.)
Appellant asserts that Gifford, the reference that the Examiner relied upon to
teach this feature, is concerned with providing an e-mail message to signal
receipt of a non-literal single media message (i.e. voicemail, facsimile, or
video clip) and not with providing an e-mail in response to detecting an
event that changes an association between a customer and a particular agent
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013