Appeal No. 2002-1755
Application No. 09/173,286
Claims 3, 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Microsoft Office in view of Nakatsu. The examiner applies
Microsoft Office in the same manner as it was applied to claims
1, 2, 8, 9 and 17. The examiner notes that whereas claim 3 calls
for a message from the group comprising an audio message, a text
message and a multimedia message and whereas claim 4 calls for
the message to be delivered over a voice network, Microsoft
Office does not disclose this. The examiner turns to Nakatsu for
this teaching.
However, to whatever extent Nakatsu may disclose the types
of messages urged by the examiner, it clearly does not provide
for the deficiency of Microsoft Office, viz., the universe of
contributing users to which the message can be directed being
“restricted.”
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 3,
4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Microsoft Office in view of
Nakatsu.
Similarly, the rejection of claims 5 and 7, dependent on
claims 4 and 6, respectively, are rejected over Microsoft Office,
Nakatsu and Hibbeler. Hibbeler is relied on by the examiner for
its teaching of telephony transmission over the internet, but
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007