Ex Parte Cheung et al - Page 9

            Appeal 2007-0717                                                                                  
            Application 09/993,277                                                                            

        1   known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent               
        2   can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” 127 S.                    
        3   Ct. at 1732, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.                                                                   
        4                                       ANALYSIS                                                      
        5     Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Miloslavsky and                   
        6                                        Tarbotton.                                                   
        7       From the Findings of Fact, supra, we conclude that                                            
        8       • The art applied shows or suggests routing email messages to an appropriate                  
        9          one of a plurality of distributed email servers (FF 11) (All claims; Br. 10-26;            
       10          Reply Br. 2-10).                                                                           
       11       • The art applied shows or suggests routing from a web server or default                      
       12          server (FF 15& 16) (claims 2, 4 and 14; Br. 17-18 and 22).                                 
       13       • The art applied shows or suggests a web server creating an email message to                 
       14          communicate the submitted information (FF 15) (claim 5; Br. 18-19).                        
       15       • The art applied shows or suggests messages that contain characteristic                      
       16          information regarding user language, location, or country (FF 18) (claims 7-               
       17          8, 10-12, and 18; Br. 19-24).                                                              
       18       The Appellants contend primarily that Miloslavsky only routes to end users                    
       19   rather than to an email server and that Tarbotton does not necessarily show that                  
       20   routing among Miloslavsky’s recipients necessitates routing through multiple                      
       21   email servers.  However, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known                 
       22   in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can                 
       23   provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” (See KSR,                     
       24   supra).   Certainly it was known at the time of the invention that call centers                   

                                                      9                                                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013