Appeal No. 1997-4018
Application No. 08/668,716
in support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
No. 26, filed May 29, 1997), Supplemental Brief (Paper No. 31,
filed October 6, 1999) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 28, filed
October 23, 1997) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter we note that claims 13 and 27 are
the only independent claims before us. Claim 27 is directed
to a communication system including a computer and the
identical facsimile machine recited in claim 13. Accordingly,
we will limit our discussion to claim 13, the broadest claim.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art reference, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 13
through 27.
Appellants have two primary arguments against the
obvious-ness of claim 13 over Lin. First, appellants contend
(Brief, pages 11-16) that Lin does not teach or suggest
interposing a facsimile machine between a computer and a
remote facsimile machine. Second, appellants assert (Brief,
pages 17-20) that Lin does not teach or suggest both a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007