Appeal No. 2006-0203
Application No. 09/187,332
functions need to be performed whether the destinations belong to
the same recipient or different ones. Thus, as stated by the
Examiner (answer, page 6), the advantages of creating an
electronic package for sending a document to various types of
destinations without having to run separate software
applications, as described by Fabbio (col. 2, lines 2-12 & 34-
37), would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the system of Ho to accept multiple destinations
information in order to send a document to those multiple
destinations.
We also remain unconvinced by Appellants’ argument (brief,
page 8) that the delivery server 12 in Figure 2 of Fabbio may not
be used in place of the PSTN 106 in Figure 1 of Ho. The
combination does not require a substitution and instead takes the
suggestion by Fabbio that a document may be sent to multiple
destination addresses when such is available. For example, as
shown in Figure 3 of Ho, a determination as to whether the
destination address relates to a fax machine or an e-mail is
performed which causes the appropriate channel of remote
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007