Appeal No. 2006-1753
Application No. 09/732,037
efficient, quality, real-time, and automated method of sending reminder
messages to the user [answer, page 13].
Appellants also argue that the cited prior art does not teach nor suggest
“providing an electronic update to a specification coordinator for any of the
plurality of users that has acknowledged the electronic notification if any of the
plurality of users has acknowledged the electronic notification” as claimed in
claims 2, 8, and 13 [brief, pages 11 and 12; reply brief, pages 7-11].1
Specifically, appellants contend that Eaton teaches determining if the READ ACK
is received and, if not, determining whether a reminder should be sent to the
transceiver [brief, page 11]. Eaton, however, does not teach electronically
updating a specification coordinator if the READ ACK has been received [brief,
pages 11 and 12; reply brief, page 9].
The examiner responds that Meunier sends electronic notifications to
multiple users interested in a certain document when changes occur, and Eaton
alerts users that fail to acknowledge sent notifications [answer, page 15].
Therefore, the combined Meunier/Eaton system would notify any users that
received Meunier’s sent notifications but have not acknowledged such
notifications [id.]. The examiner further notes that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the limitation “specification coordinator” does not preclude the
message originator disclosed in the cited prior art [answer, pages 15 and 16].
1 Although appellants included claim 7 in this argument, claim 7 was previously cancelled and is
therefore not pending. See also page 12 of the brief (including cancelled claim 12 in the
argument of subheading (b)).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007