Appeal 2007-1440
Application 09/920,481
parsing the second e-mail message for at least one of the order codes
specified by the user
extracting the items of content identified by the order codes in the
second e-mail message
packaging the items of content from the extracting step into a single
package unit
responding via e-mail to the second e-mail message with a response e-
mail message comprising the single package unit comprising the items of
content corresponding to the order codes in the second e-mail message.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Gifford US 5,724,424 Mar. 3, 1998
Talati US 5,903,878 May 11, 1999
Schuster US 6,351,524 B1 Feb. 26, 2002
(filed Jan. 20, 1999)
Joseph US 2003/0028448 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
(filed May 10, 2001)
Appellant’s admitted prior art at ¶ 0004 of the Specification (“APA”).
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 13, 14, 16-18, 22, 23, 25-27, and 41 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gifford in view of
Talati.
2. Claims 3, 15, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gifford in view of Talati and further in view of
APA.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013