Appeal No. 2004-1952
Application No. 09/207,954
Appellants, for their part, contend that Riddle does not
teach marketing messages and, so, does not support the fact
alleged in the examiner’s “Official notice,” which has been
challenged by appellants. Appellants allege that what is missing
from the Official notice is “the connection between the
‘advertisement’ of [Riddle] and the marketing message of the
claims. The ‘advertisement’ of [Riddle] is not a marketing
message at all. Rather, it is a notice that a particular file is
available for download during a computer-based teleconference”
(principal brief, page 4).
In addition to the argument that the examiner has improperly
relied on “Official notice,” appellants further contend that
claim 35 recites a plurality of steps that are performed by or at
a server, and that the examiner has not alleged that a server
even exists in Mendler, let alone that the server performs the
claimed tasks (principal brief, page 5). In fact, appellants
point out, the tasks described in Mendler are all performed by
people, not servers. Further, allege appellants, if the examiner
is asserting that the operators in Mendler would be replaced by a
server, the examiner “has identified no teaching that a server
calling a potential customer with another existing customer
already on the line would in any way increase the likelihood that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007