Appeal No. 1996-3281
Application 07/895,467
Appellant argues:
Both references fail to recognize a passed
transmission starting time as an error and both
simply transmit the message immediately without
notifying the sender. Appellant respectfully
submits that the Examiner is using impermissible
hindsight to read what is only now disclosed in the
present specification into the teachings of both
references. (Brief-page 19.)
The Examiner states;
Sekiya shows all the claimed limitations except
an error indicating means.
At the time that the invention was made,
Takenouchi et al (column 12, line 34) had suggested
an error producing means and in column 5, lines 6-7
had suggested a correction could be made in response
to “an error message”. Hence, the teaching in
Takenouchi et al could have been used in Sekiya to
indicate a message should be re-mailed. (Answer-
page 3.)
At page 3 of the Answer, the Examiner cites various
portions of Takenouchi. The Examiner cites “time-controlled”
as a suggestion that there may be a difference in time zones
to be recognized. We find no such suggestion, “time-
controlled” could mean many things, but in the context of
Takenouchi, it merely means a time for transmission if other
than the current time. Time zones are never mentioned.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007