Appeal No. 2004-2086 Page 6
Application No. 09/238,800
translated into; i.e., the sender puts the recipient's address on
the e-mail and then modifies the top level and second level
domain name fields to a site where translations from a first
language to a second language are performed, i.e., the
translation address is concatenated onto the destination
language. Once translation of the message occurs, the translated
message is dispatched to the destination site by restoring the
top and second level destination names (col. 9, lines 22-28).
Thus, an e-mail address of frrecipient@frcompany.com is changed
to frrecipient@frcompany.com.translationsite.com (col. 8, line 61
through col. 9, line 12). Since in Boucher the sender determines
the translation language, we agree with appellants that Boucher
does not teach that the communication is translated into a
language desired by the recipient. In addition, from our review
of Boucher, we agree with appellants, for the reasons which
follow, that Boucher does not teach intercepting an incoming
communication. As discussed, supra, Boucher discloses sending
the message to the translation site and then to the recipient.
Although the translation site is concatenated onto the e-mail
address of the recipient, we find no teaching, not withstanding
the arguments of the examiner to the contrary, of intercepting
the communication to be translated. The definition of a term in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007