Appeal No. 2006-1753
Application No. 09/732,037
email message including sending a second notification to a supervisor if a
notification of successful receipt of the original message was not received [id.].
In view of Hass, the examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the skilled
artisan at the time of the invention to alert a supervisor in the Meunier/Eaton
system to inform all necessary individuals that messages were received [id.].
Appellants argue that there is no reasonable expectation of success in
combining Meunier with Hass. According to appellants, Meunier pertains to a
document recommendation system including a document change monitoring
agent, whereas Hass relates to a system for tracking data transmission [brief,
pages 13 and 14]. Appellants contend that the examiner has not evidenced how
such systems would be combined [id.].
We will sustain the examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3, 9, and
14. Hass discloses a system for tracking and reporting various types of
electronic data transmissions within the context of “push” technologies such as
email (i.e., the sender controls when the email message is sent while the
recipient user passively receives the message) [Hass, col. 1, lines 23-30 and 55-
63]. Such data transmissions include documents, images, email messages,
data, etc. [Hass, col. 2, lines 45-48].
As shown in Fig. 2, data transmissions are sent from a server to a client
(step 3), and if the recipient client fails to notify the server agent that the data
transmission was successfully received within a predetermined time period, then
the server agent electronically notifies the recipient user via a “notification action”
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007