Appeal 2007-1286
Application 09/849,088
through the signal test, the system determines whether the call will be connected or
if the user will be prompted for voice mail. However, as also discussed supra,
when the user is prompted to leave a voice mail, the user implicitly decides
whether to leave a voice mail. Thus, the act of leaving a voice mail is an
identification by the user (caller) that information comprising voice signals is to be
sent to the user of the mobile phone. Thus, we find that Sumner does disclose the
claimed “user identified storable information.” Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7 through 9, and 11 through 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e).
Appellant argues on pages 7 and 8 of the Brief that the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 2 through 6, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are in error for the same
reasons discussed with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Further, Appellant argues that it would not be obvious to modify Sumner to meet
the claimed invention as Sumner teaches away from “user identified storable
information.”
We are not persuaded by this line of reasoning. As discussed with respect to
the rejection of claim 1, we find that Sumner teaches “user identified storable
information.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2
through 6, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons discussed with respect
to claim 1.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7 through 9, and 11 through
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2 through 6,
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013