Appeal No. 2000-0369
Application No. 08/477,770
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that neither Fuller nor Silverberg discloses a first or second
determining means nor do the references disclose the use of a communication procedure
signal. (See reply brief at pages 1-2.) We agree with appellant. The examiner maintains
that the signal from the depression of the asterisk “*” key followed by a mailbox number
and the pound key “#” is a communication procedure signal.
(See answer at pages 4-5.) The examiner relies on columns 5-6 of Fuller to teach
reception of the mailbox number and storage of the message in the appropriate mailbox.
The examiner then admits that Fuller does not transfer the stored document
to a personal computer and relies upon the teachings of Silverberg for this feature.
While we agree with the examiner that Fuller does not transfer the stored document to a
personal computer, we find that Fuller does teach that recipients can have a notification at
a remote location of receipt of documents and/or have documents
automatically forwarded to another facsimile machine. (See Fuller at columns 7-9, Fig. 4
and 6.) While this is close to a personal computer and at times may even be a personal
computer, we find that Fuller stores the document and then determines the appropriate
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007