Appeal No. 2002-1761
Application No. 09/169,757
server for the subscriber, as claimed. Instead, appellant urges
that Pepe’s PCI network includes a PCI server which must be used
in order for Pepe’s system to be operational.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 8-14 and 16-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because the burden of establishing
anticipation rests, in the first instance, with the examiner and
it is our opinion that the examiner has not carried his burden.
In applying Pepe to the claims, the examiner points, broadly
to general portions of the reference, as in “Figure 3" or “Figure
2," elements “44, 42, 40,” etc. However, the examiner never sets
forth a one-to-one correspondence between the claimed elements
and what, exactly, is deemed to correspond to those elements in
the reference. For example, what is the claimed “adjunct
processor” in the reference? The examiner does not expressly
say. Where is the claimed “messaging service node” in the
reference? The examiner does not expressly say. What, in the
reference, corresponds to the claimed “designated destination
server”? Again, the examiner does not expressly say.
Thus, while Pepe certainly is very relevant to the instant
claimed invention in its communications network, providing an
Internet gateway, detecting message notifications, and optionally
routing message notifications, it is hard to follow the
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007