Appeal No. 2006-1252 Page 9
Application No. 10/310,886
With respect to claim 8, appellant (brief, p. 13) argues that the examiner has
failed to specify where the feature of the network server having a messaging
program for generating and sending a message to a node in the network when a
predetermined condition is detected in said device is taught or suggested in the
references. The examiner points out on page 7 of the answer that Whitmore
(Figure 5) discloses a warning message with a fault description and a date and time
of the occurrence of said fault and refers to Whitmore’s disclosure (col. 2, ll. 50-
55), considering the text information about various gun devices to be messages as
recited in the claim. Moreover, the examiner notes that Scherer discloses (Figure
13) a “message” area in the upper left-hand corner of the screen and use of simple
mail transfer protocol (SMTP) for sending messages throughout the system
(answer, p. 7). It is not apparent, and appellant has not cogently explained, why
the portions of the references alluded to by the examiner would not have been
suggestive of the claim limitation highlighted by appellant. The rejection of claim
8 is sustained.
We cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 10, or claims 11-
20, which depend from claim 10, as, despite appellant’s challenge to do so (brief,
pp. 13-14), the examiner has failed to point out where the applied references teach
or suggest the features recited in claims 9 and 10 and it is not immediately apparent
where such teachings or suggestions are found in the references. We likewise
cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 21, or claims 22-36 depending
from claim 21, as the examiner has refused to respond to appellant’s challenge to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007