Appeal No. 2006-0203
Application No. 09/187,332
transmitting the converted document to the facsimile
telephone number and to the electronic mail address in response
to the same instance of the actuator being activated by the user.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Ho et al. (Ho) 5,805,298 Sep. 8, 1998
Fabbio et al. (Fabbio) 5,870,089 Feb. 9, 1999
(filed Nov. 24, 1997)
Claims 19-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ho and Fabbio.
We make reference to the answer (mailed June 16, 2004) for
the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the appeal brief (filed March
30, 2004) and the reply brief (filed August 19, 2004) for
Appellants arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellants argue that merely because Ho allows sending a
document to one specific destination, either a remote facsimile
or an e-mail address, it would not have been obvious to send it
to both simultaneously (brief, page 6). Appellants further point
out that relying on the software in the general purpose computer
of Fabbio for delivering a document to both a facsimile and a
printer would be a departure from the document transmission by a
stand alone facsimile (brief, page 7). While conceding that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007