Appeal No. 96-1082
Application 08/275,882
Rush is no longer relied upon in the rejection of the claims,
the examiner now asserts that the claimed facsimile response
is disclosed in both the Boulia and Torres references. The
examiner has also now read the claimed invention on the
disclosures of Boulia and Torres in an anticipatory manner.
The original appeal brief is primarily directed to
pointing out the inadequacies of the Rush reference which was
relied on for all the rejections in the final rejection.
Appellants also pointed out in the original brief, however,
that there is no teaching or suggestion in Torres of a
facsimile response which combines an application and a
peripheral device as claimed. With respect to Boulia,
appellants argued that there is also no teaching therein of a
facsimile response which combines applications with peripheral
devices.
The examiner responded to appellants’ arguments by
reiterating that Boulia and Torres teach “facsimile response”
in the sense of “exact copy or likeness” [answer, page 12].
Appellants responded that the devices of Boulia and Torres do
not provide a facsimile response of a combination of an
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007