Appeal No. 2006-0203
Application No. 09/187,332
transmitting the fax message and the e-mail (reply brief, pages
3-4).
We disagree with Appellants that the portions of Ho relied
on by the Examiner do not teach the claimed networks for
transmitting the fax and the e-mail messages. The PSTN 106 in Ho
provides the necessary links for the facsimile communication as
well as the electronic mail communications which, in turn, may be
performed by a commercial service for access to the Internet
(col. 3, lines 31-42 & 58-61). Although using a single protocol
for such transmission is not specified by Ho, we do not find that
the claims require such protocol either. In that regard, Ho uses
a public switched telephone network (PSTN) for facsimile and
e-mail transmission, whether a router or a commercial network is
used. Therefore, as the Examiner has established a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to claim 22, we sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 22, as well as claims 24, 25,
29 and 35 argued together with claim 22 (brief, pages 8-9), over
Ho and Fabbio.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007