Appeal No. 2000-1503
Application 08/655,126
transmitting all of the messages which may be available to the
remote recipient.”
With respect to the teachings of Gordon, the appellant
argues (reply brief, pages 2 and 3) that:
As noted in Figs. 5A and 7, while the user may
manipulate the queue in Gordon et al. ‘302 by
directing a message or making additional copies of
the message or forwarding copies of the messages to
other locations or change the priority of a selected
message, the user cannot pick only selected message
to be sent. All of the messages in the queue are
sent.
Inasmuch as appellant’s assessment of the teachings of
Gordon agrees with the teachings of Gordon (column 12, lines
37 through 62), we agree with the appellant (brief, page 7)
that:
In view of the above, it is submitted that it
would not be obvious to combine the references in
the fashion noted by the Examiner and even if the
references were so combined, the resultant
combination does not teach or suggest the recited
steps of checking whether or not a received message
selection number has been inputted by a calling
party and transmitting only a received message
corresponding to the received selection number from
the local facsimile machine to the facsimile machine
of the calling party when the received message
selection number has been inputted to the calling
party as recited in Claim 1.
In summary, the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007