Appeal 2007-1286
Application 09/849,088
the Answer. Throughout the opinion, we refer to the Brief (filed Nov. 1, 2005),
and the Answer (mailed Jan. 27, 2006) for the respective details thereof.
ISSUES
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
in error. Appellant argues that Sumner is silent as to receiving and transmitting
“user identified storable information” as recited in the independent claims. Rather
Appellant states:
Sumner teaches that the communication system decides whether or not a call
should be routed to a voicemail deposit process (step 408) based on the
transmission and/or reception rates. Thus, Sumner fails to teach or suggest
user identified storable information. (emphasis original).
(Br. 6)
The Examiner contends that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is proper.
The Examiner states:
[C]laims 1, 9 and 12 do not require that the information be transmitted at a
time specified by a user as argued by the appellant. The language of
independent claims 1, 9 and 12 only requires the system to receive user
identified storable information comprised of voice signals over a signaling
channel and to transmit that information to a destination over a traffic
channel.
(Answer 8).
Initially, we note that Appellant’s arguments are directed to the anticipation
rejection group all of the rejected claims together. In accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we group claims 1, 7 through 9, and 11 through 141 together and
select claim 1 as a representative claim. The contentions of Appellant present us
1 We note that claim 14 is a duplicate of claim 11.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013