Appeal No. 2004-1952
Application No. 09/207,954
Such a server, having the claimed capabilities, or any
server, for that matter, is not disclosed or suggested by the MCI
“Friends and Family” billing plan relied on by the examiner.
Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that Mendler did suggest such
a server, an assumption with which we disagree, we agree with
appellants that Riddle does not provide for the missing
“marketing message,” as claimed. While Riddle may share files in
a teleconferencing environment, there is no indication therein
that a “marketing message” is delivered to the teleconferencing
parties. File sharing in Riddle, where one “advertises” for
files (e.g., see column 13, lines 25-30), is just not the same as
a marketing message, as claimed. But, even if one would consider
such to be a “marketing message,” as claimed, the examiner has
provided no convincing reason why the skilled artisan would have
sought to make the combination and provide for the claimed
“marketing message” in a teleconferencing environment. Even if
we accept that it was “well known” to provide marketing messages,
as alleged by the examiner, this is not a reason to provide for
such messages by delivering them from a server to a caller and a
third party during a telephone conference call, as claimed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007