Appeal No. 2002-0867
Application No. 08/738,659
position in the references. Neither the briefs nor the declaration rely on any other
factual support tending to substantiate appellant’s position.
However, we agree with appellant, as developed in the briefs and the
declaration, that the combination of Kraslavsky and Cohn would not have suggested
transmission of Internet electronic communications between a monitored and a
monitored device as claimed. We disagree with appellant to the extent that appellant
may hold that neither reference discloses use of the Internet (e.g. declaration at 10).
Cohn teaches a message format having an “Internet style address” (col. 15, l. 65 - col.
16, l. 36) that facilitates communications with messaging systems such as Internet
service providers (col. 15, ll. 21-32).
However, as pointed out at page 6, paragraph 11 of the declaration, all of the
messages contemplated by Cohn originate from a human and are intended for a human
recipient. Kraslavsky deals with device status monitoring on a LAN or on one or more
LANs in a wide-area network (WAN), as described at column 7, line 38 et seq. of the
reference. We find no disclosure or suggestion in Kraslavsky or Cohn, nor in any
combination of teachings thereof, for transmitting Internet electronic mail messages
between machines, for monitoring devices, as claimed by appellant. The Banno
reference, applied by the examiner to show an asserted inherent feature of Kraslavsky,
fails to remedy the deficiency of Kraslavsky and Cohn.
We thus do not sustain the Section 103 rejection of claims 12-15, 17-19, 38-41,
43, 44, 52-61, 68-73, 75-77, 79-81, 83-85, and 87.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007