Appeal No. 2003-0334
Application No. 09/519,964
Appellants argue that Masters never describes or suggests the
need to modify the domain service record in response to changed
routing information. Appellants argue that Masters does not
teach or suggest a method or apparatus for adding new domains and
their associated domain service record as claimed. Appellants
argue that even though Call teaches the use of domains and their
associated domain service record, Call adds nothing to Masters
with respect to adding new domains and associated domain service
records. Thus, appellants argue that merely updating routing
tables, as taught by Masters and Kim, does not offer any teaching
on how to automatically update domain server records to
incorporate new domain names [brief, pages 5-6]. Appellants make
the same arguments with respect to independent claims 10 and 14.
The examiner responds that Masters teaches that a new
routing table is created when new routing information becomes
available. The examiner concludes, therefore, that Masters
discloses the process of updating the routing table based upon
newly received routing information. The examiner admits that
Masters does not teach the process of using the domain names
associated with the incoming message at the Messaging server, but
the examiner notes that Call teaches that domain names associated
with incoming messages were well known in the art. The examiner
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007