Appeal 2007-1762
Application 10/218,245
Claims 25-33 and 47
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25-33 and 47 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Bilbrey.
In rejecting independent claim 25, the Examiner relies upon
paragraphs 7, 101, and Figs. 19A-26 of Bilbrey, and asserts that displaying a
rejection message through a graphical user interface would have been
obvious, without reliance upon any secondary reference (Answer 8). In
particular, the Examiner relies upon paragraph 7 in addressing the limitation
“responsive to said user editing said profile, checking whether a confirm
status of said email address is change pending” (Answer 7-8; see also claim
25).
Appellants argue that Bilbrey fails to teach checking the confirm
status of an e-mail address, particularly in response to a user editing profile
information (Br. 28).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner provided
additional citations to Bilbrey at paragraphs 90-93 (Answer 14).
After carefully considering the evidence before us, we find that
paragraph 7 of Bilbrey is merely directed to a general discussion regarding
e-mail addresses and other profile information that may be updated or
changed. Similarly, paragraphs 90-93 of Bilbrey merely discuss verifying
an e-mail address change with the user. Upon review of all citations
proffered by the Examiner, and the entirety of Bilbrey, we find nothing in
Bilbrey that fairly teaches and/or suggests checking whether a “confirm
status” of an e-mail address is “change pending” in response to a user editing
profile information, as required by the language of claim 25. Therefore, we
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013