Appeal No. 2000-0274
Application No. 08/724,568
Appellants argue (brief, page 12) that:
For example amended claim 1 includes a step of:
receiving a message length command from the
messaging system indicating a total message length
of a message, said message including a plurality of
interspersed message fragments, pending transmission
from the messaging system. Neither the background
material nor Hamamoto et al[.] nor Faris et al[.]
discusses or suggests any such message length
command in Applicant’s [sic, Applicants’] view.
As indicated supra, the admitted prior art transmits a
message fragment length, as opposed to a “total message
length.” A “total message length” command is neither taught
by nor would have been suggested by either Faris or Hamamoto.
Appellants additionally argue (brief, page 13) that:
While the background material, referring to the
query approach, does speak of a message length and
determining the memory sufficiency based on this
information as well as reserving memory if
appropriate[,] there is no process step equivalent
to disallowing reception if the memory is
insufficient
. . . . Faris et al[.] at col. 1[,] line 58 speaks of
receiving a message and determining the size of the
message again rather than disallowing reception based on
a message length command. Hamamoto et al. does not speak
of these or of analogous steps.
We agree with appellants’ argument that the admitted
prior art and Hamamoto are silent as to disallowing reception
of a message if the memory has insufficient space to receive
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007