Appeal 2007-1063
Application 09/881,594
Thomas in view of Roach] to initiate real time media data sessions” (Answer
7:18-20). Because Thomas is not limited to electronic mail communications,
and contains no teaching excluding telephonic or multimedia
communication, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5
and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Other Issues
Should there be further prosecution of this application, we bring the
following references to the attention of Appellant and the Examiner:
Dingman US 2004/0024879 A1 Feb. 5, 2004
Oren US 2003/0145093 A1 Jul. 31, 2003
Stephenson US 2002/0023143 A1 Feb. 21, 2002
Dingman teaches transmitting a message, e.g., every 30 seconds to
keep the path in the firewall/NAT open in case a user agent is behind a
NAT/firewall (para. [0115]). Oren teaches maintaining a connection by
having a client module send a keep-alive message every few hundred
seconds (para. [0062]). Stephenson teaches sending a keep-alive message to
maintain a connection through a firewall (para. [0108]).
Although Dingman is not prior art to Appellant, the reference can be
used as evidence to confirm what the Thomas patent would teach to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-6, 25, 26, 30, 31, 33-36, 38 and 39. Claims 1-6, 25, 26,
30, 31, 33-36, 38 and 39 are not patentable.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013