Appeal No. 2006-0203
Application No. 09/187,332
Fabbio identifies different destinations for sending a digital
document, Appellants argue that there is nothing in the
reference to suggest that these destinations be of the same
recipient (id.). Additionally, Appellants point out that the
combination is not reasonable since it requires replacing a
public switched telephone network with the functionality of a
server and its associated software (brief, page 8).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner argues
that although Ho sends either a fax or an e-mail, it is Fabbio
which teaches sending both at the same time (answer, page 6).
The Examiner further points out that since Fabbio provides for
the simple modification of sending a digitized document to more
than one destination “at the same time,” it would have been
obvious to send the fax and the e-mail simultaneously to
eliminate the need for multiple transmissions (id.). The
Examiner further identifies the claim term “of the same
recipient” as a limitation that has neither any functionality nor
any structural impact on the process recited in claim 1 (id.).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007