Appeal No. 2002-1761
Application No. 09/169,757
detecting at the service node a Short Message Services message
notification from the subscriber’s voice mailbox: Figure 3,
elements 46, 44, 42, 40 and column 4, lines 57-67.
transmitting the message notification to the adjunct processor:
Figure 3, service provider 40, and column 5, lines 51-67.
determining at the adjunct processor the at least one designated
destination server for the subscriber: Figure 3, service provider
40.
routing the message notification to the at least one local
Internet gateway: Figure 3, service provider 40.
transmitting from the adjunct processor to the local Internet
gateway the at least one designated destination server for the
subscriber: Figure 3, elements 44, 42, 40.
routing the message notification to the at least one designated
destination server: column 5, lines 51-67.
For his part, appellant argues that many claimed limitations
are not disclosed by Pepe. In particular, appellant cites
“detecting at [a] service node a Short Message Services message
notification from the subscriber’s voice mailbox” and
“transmitting the message notification to adjunct processor.”
Appellant urges that Pepe cannot disclose these claim limitations
because Pepe’s PCI network does not use Short Message Services,
but uses AMIS-Analog Protocol instead.
Appellant also argues that Pepe makes no determination at
the adjunct processor of the at least one designated destination
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007