Appeal No. 2003-0334
Application No. 09/519,964
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived by appellants [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The examiner has indicated how he finds the claimed
invention to be obvious over the teachings of Masters and Kim
[answer, pages 3-7]. With respect to independent claims 1, 10
and 14, the examiner essentially finds that Masters teaches the
claimed invention except that Masters does not explicitly show
the process of using the domain name associated with the incoming
message at the Messaging server. The examiner cites Call as
teaching that the use of a domain name associated with the
incoming message at the Messaging server was well known in the
art. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to modify Masters in view of Call by including the use of
the domain name associated with an incoming message since Call
teaches that the use of a domain name was well known in the art.
With respect to independent claim 1, appellants argue
that Masters updates a routing table based on e-mail components
which are already known to an associated directory service.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007