Appeal 2007-0148
Application 10/964,939
(see ¶¶ 0072-0076). The source information is clearly "message content."
Thus, the decision on whether to send by an SMS messaging engine or by an
IM messaging engine is in part based on source content. The rejection of
claims 1-6 and 8 is affirmed.
Claims 9-16
Independent claim 9 recites "plural messaging systems each having a
format different than the file." Appellants argue that "Hullfish et al.
repeatedly talks of 'forwarding' messages but never mentions 'reformatting'
them in other formats" (Br. 5). It is argued that the Examiner's reliance on
paragraphs 34 and 92 and elements 704 and 708 is misplaced because these
paragraphs do not discuss reformatting.
The Examiner finds that paragraphs 60-62 teach that if the user wants
to receive an SMS text message as an IM, the SMS server reformats the
SMS text message as an IM message (Answer 11-12).
Appellants reply that the paragraphs do not mention reformatting. It
is argued that paragraph 60 teaches forwarding an SMS text message based
on user preferences (Reply Br. 2). It is argued that "paragraph 61 teaches
only that a user can decide whether to receive an SMS message 'as an instant
message' that is 'generated' in paragraph 62 without stating anything more
about how this leap is accomplished" (Reply Br. 3) and is not enabling.
We agree with Appellants that paragraphs 60-62 do not appear to
teach or suggest reformatting or, at least, the Examiner does not clearly
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013