Ex Parte LIEBENOW - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2003-0247                                                        
          Application No. 09/185,924                                                  


          after failure of that computer system to initiate communication             
          with a first network communications device associated with a                
          second computer system, a message to a second communications                
          device associated with the second computer system.  Claim 1,                
          directed toward the method, is illustrative:                                
          1.  A method of operating a first computerized system having a              
          first network communications device, the method comprising:                 
               operating the first computerized system to try to initiate             
          communications between the first network communications device              
          and a network communications device associated with a second                
          computerized system; and                                                    
               after failing to initiate communications between the first             
          and second network communications devices, operating the first              
          computerized system to communicate a message to a second                    
          communications device associated with the second computerized               
          system.                                                                     

                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
          Walton et al. (Walton)          4,930,151          May  29, 1990            
          Thro et al. (Thro)              5,884,159          Mar. 16, 1999            
          (filed Nov. 27, 1995)                                                       
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 1-15 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as             
          being unpatentable over Thro in view of Walton.                             
                                       OPINION                                        
               We reverse the aforementioned rejection.  We need to address           
          only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 5, 10, 12 and 14.              

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007