Appeal No. 2003-1598
Application 09/213,851
examiner fail to support the examiner’s position that Dillon
teaches low speed links for e-mail notifications in the manner
recited in appellants’ claims. Appellants note that the prior
art pagers described in Dillon, which use low speed links for e-
mail notification, are not disclosed as being used with Dillon’s
two-link system. Appellants argue that the examiner has selected
elements from a prior art device and combined them with elements
from Dillon’s disclosed invention in order to meet the claimed
invention [brief, pages 7-16].
The examiner responds that Dillon clearly teaches a low
speed link for e-mail notifications in column 3, lines 1-11 and
column 2, lines 19-22. The examiner asserts that the prior art
device disclosed in Dillon is appellants’ claimed invention
[answer, pages 11-13].
Appellants respond that the e-mail notifications in
Dillon use a high speed link. Appellants also respond that the
prior art pager described in Dillon does not meet the claimed
invention because the pager is separate from the user’s e-mail
message device [reply brief, pages 4-6].
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 55 for essentially the reasons argued by appellants
in the briefs. As noted by appellants, neither the prior art
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007