Appeal No. 2006-0203
Application No. 09/187,332
connection be selected. However, as suggested by Fabbio, the
document may be sent to multiple destinations, which merely
requires that each of the destination addresses be identified as
either a fax number or an e-mail address through the process
depicted in Figure 3 of Ho. Therefore, as the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claim 19, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim
19, as well as claims 20, 21, 23, 26-28, 30-34 and 36, argued
therewith as falling together (brief, pages 4-8) over Ho and
Fabbio.
Turning now to the rejection of claim 22, we note
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the claimed server acting
as an intermediary that allows the transmission of the e-mail and
the fax message according to a single protocol (brief, page 9).
The Examiner’s response focuses on the use of a commercial
service by Ho (col. 3, lines 58-61) which originates both the
facsimile and the e-mail versions of the transmission (answer,
page 6). Appellants assert that Ho merely refers to what a
router is and not that a single protocol is used for
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007