Appeal No. 2006-2890
Application No. 09/842,747
The examiner’s statement of the rejection of independent claims 1, 7, 14 and
19 at pages 4 and 5 of the answer has been expanded upon in the Responsive
Argument portion of the answer beginning at page 8, which addresses each of the
arguments presented in topics 1 through 3 at pages 6 through 8 of the brief. Even
though appellant’s arguments at topics 2 and 3 at pages 7 and 8 of the brief
essentially argue that the references to Cloutier and Stein are not properly
combinable within 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner’s corresponding remarks in the
answer have persuaded us that the teachings and suggestions of both references
would have led the artisan to have combined their respective teachings into a single
system as argued by the examiner.
The feature of the so-called “push model” in the first line of the preamble of
independent claim 1 not only bears no operative relationship to the body of this
claim, it is not additionally recited in any of the remaining independent claims 7,
14 and 19. The disclosed feature of the invention of being able to access
mailboxes over a low bandwidth high latency wireless network is not recited in any
independent claim on appeal as well. The references applied by the examiner
contain substantial teachings as to the alternative usability of their respective
systems with voice or fax or email or unified mailbox networks to the extent
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007