Appeal No. 2000-0369
Application No. 08/477,770
(c) receive control means for controlling said receiving
means to receive the document when said second determining means
determines that the document to be received is the document destined for a
mail box of said personal computer,
(d) storage control means for storing the document
received by said receiving means into said storage means,
(e) transfer means for transferring the document stored in
said storage means to said personal computer via a network, and
(f) erasing means for erasing the document, which is
transferred by said transfer means, in said storage means.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Silverberg 5,091,790 Feb. 25, 1992
Fuller et al. (Fuller) 5,224,156 Jun. 29, 1993
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fuller
in view of Silverberg.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 19, mailed Mar. 17, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 18, filed May 26, 1998)
and reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed May 17, 1999) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007