Appeal No. 2002-0867
Application No. 08/738,659
BACKGROUND
The invention is directed to a method and system for communications, using
electronic mail, between a monitoring device and a device monitored by the monitoring
device. Claim 10 is reproduced below.
10. A method for communicating between a monitored device and a
monitoring device, comprising the steps of:
determining information to be transmitted by the monitoring device to the
monitored device, the information including a request for a status of the
monitored device determined using sensors within the monitored device; and
transmitting the information through electronic mail from the monitoring
device to the monitored device.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Banno et al. (Banno) 4,876,606 Oct. 24, 1989
Kraslavsky et al. (Kraslavsky) 5,537,626 Jul. 16, 1996
(filed Feb. 13, 1995)
Cohn et al. (Cohn) 5,740,231 Apr. 14, 1998
(filed Sep. 16, 1994)
Claims 10, 12-19, 36, 38-44, 52-61, and 68-87 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kraslavsky and Cohn.1
We refer to the Rejection (Paper No. 41; mailed Jul. 30, 2001) and the
Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 47; mailed Nov. 19, 2001) for a statement of the
1 Banno, relied upon as showing an inherent feature of Kraslavsky, should have been included in
the initial statement of the rejection as to the relevant claims. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3,
166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970) (“Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or
not in a ‘minor capacity,’ there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in
the statement of rejection.”).
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007