Appeal No. 2000-0369
Application No. 08/477,770
handling of the document rather than determining prior to reception and storage as recited
in the language of independent claim 1. Claim 1 requires:
(a) first determining means for determining whether or not
a document to be received is destined for the mail box of said facsimile
apparatus or said personal computer based on the communication
procedure signal received by said receiving means,
(b) second determining means for comparing designation
information in the communication procedure signal with the first and second
mail box information stored in said mail box information storage means to
determine whether or not the document to be received is the document
destined for a mail box of said personal computer. (Emphasis added.)
Therefore, we agree with appellant that Fuller does not teach or suggest the first or second
determining means for a document to be received as defined by the language of claim 1.
(See reply brief at pages 2-3.) We find that Fuller determines the additional routing of a
received document not routing of a to be received document.
Appellant argues that the second determining means does not compare destination
information in the communication procedure signal with the first and second mail box
information stored in said mail box information storage means to determine whether or not
the document to be received is the document destined for a mail box of
said personal computer. We agree with appellant. Appellant argues that there is no
comparison of the “*” to determine the destination of the document. We agree with
appellant. Since the examiner has not provided a teaching of all the elements of the
claimed invention as recited in the language of independent claim 1, we will not sustain the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007