Appeal 2007-1762
Application 10/218,245
Dependent claim 8
We have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 2 as
being anticipated by Togawa. Therefore, we will also reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 as being anticipated by Togawa, as claim 8
depends from claim 2.
Independent claims 19, 35 and 40
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 19,
35 and 40 as being anticipated by Togawa.
In rejecting independent claims 19, 35 and 40, the Examiner directly
relies upon ¶ 31 of Togawa (Answer 5) and argues that the citations used in
the rejection of claim 2 also address claim 19 (Answer 13).6 Appellants
argue that Togawa fails to disclose: “said user registering at said partner
site” (claim 19), or “said user changing profile fields other than e-mail
address” (claims 19, 35), or “said user changing a field in said profile data
other than e-mail address” (claim 40) (Br. 24).
We note that the Examiner has not provided any citation specifically
addressing the limitation of “said user registering at said partner site” (claim
19). We agree with Appellants that paragraph 31 of Togawa fails to disclose
a user registering at a partner site or a user changing profile fields other than
an e-mail address. In paragraph 31, we find the only disclosed change is
made to the server name (i.e., domain name) of an e-mail address (i.e., the
portion after the @ symbol in an e-mail address). Togawa merely discloses
that such server name is “updated due to a provider change, a company
name change, and a staff reassignment (transfer) etc.” (see Togawa, ¶ 31).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013