Appeal No. 2002-1761
Application No. 09/169,757
Claims 8-14 and 16-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Pepe.
Claims 1-6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Pepe, alone, with
regard to claim 15, adding Amin with regard to claims 1-6.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
An anticipatory reference is one which describes all of the
elements of the claimed invention so as to have placed a person
of ordinary skill in the art in possession thereof. In re Spada,
911 F.2d 205, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It is the examiner’s position that Pepe anticipates claims
8-14 and 16-26. With regard to claim 8, for example, the
examiner makes the following observations regarding the portions
of the reference meeting the claim language:
providing at least one Internet gateway in communication with a
communication network: Figure 1, elements 29, 40.
providing an adjunct processor in communication with a messaging
service node and the Internet gateway: Figure 3, elements 46, 44,
42, 40.
providing at least one database in communication with the adjunct
processor, the database including at least one designated
destination server corresponding to the subscriber: Figure 3,
elements 46, 44, and column 5, lines 51-67.
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007