Appeal No. 96-0712 Page 5
Application No. 08/015,756
sets forth reasons for the rejection of claim 11 at the bottom
of page 10 of the answer. Apparently, appellant acquiesces in
this assumption since appellant had the opportunity to file a
reply brief responsive to the answer but chose not to do so.
Turning first to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
103 over Gordon, the examiner has very clearly and reasonably
set forth the grounds of rejection and the rationale therefor
at pages 4 through 7. The examiner sets forth the application
of Gordon to instant claim 1, identifying corresponding
elements and indicating where there are differences. The
examiner then sets forth reasons as to why the claimed subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious, within the meaning
of 35 U.S.C. 103, despite those differences. Accordingly, in
our view, the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness along the guidelines set forth in Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
In attempting to overcome this prima facie case, appellant
has made a variety of arguments. First, at page 3 of the
brief, appellant questions the examiner’s refusal to enter an
amendment which would have made it explicit in the claims that
the stored fax messages are delivered directly to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007