Appeal No. 2006-1753
Application No. 09/732,037
(step 5a) [Hass, col. 5, lines 7-38]. If, however, the server agent still does not
receive the notification of successful receipt after a second predetermined time
period, a second notification action (step 6a) is sent to an alternative user
including “an individual who is in authority over the intended recipient user in an
organization” [Hass, col. 5, lines 50-61]. This individual with authority over the
intended recipient in Hass, in our view, is reasonably considered a supervisor.
We find ample evidence on this record that the skilled artisan would
reasonably expect success in combining the teachings of Hass with Meunier. As
we noted previously, Meunier’s document change notification system is ultimately
an electronic communication system – a system that electronically communicates
document changes to a community of interested users.4
Because both Meunier and Hass pertain to electronic communications
systems, we see no reason why the skilled artisan would not reasonably refer to
teachings of Hass to modify Meunier to ensure that messages sent electronically
to intended recipients (e.g., changed documents) were actually received by the
intended recipients. In our view, notifying a supervisor electronically of the
intended recipient’s failure to acknowledge the sent transmission as taught by
Hass would, at the very least, alert a higher-level official to a possible problem
with the communication system. With such a timely alert, the higher-level official
could then promptly initiate appropriate corrective measures. Thus, electronically
notifying a supervisor would only enhance the ability of Meunier’s system to
4 See page 9, supra, of this opinion.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007