Appeal No. 2006-2890
Application No. 09/842,747
recited in the independent claims on appeal. These are merely alternative
recitations.
Appellant’s disclosed invention uses as a wireless device a Wireless
Application Protocol (WAP) phone of the type generally disclosed in both
references relied upon by the examiner. The sending or so-called “pushing” of a
new message notification and an updated mailbox content list to the wireless
devices disclosed is done by SMS or Short Messages Services, which is
specifically taught in the last paragraph of the Summary at column 2 of Cloutier.
Although we recognize that the emphases in Cloutier is upon the sending of a high
priority message notice to the user to the wireless device 170 in figure 1 and the
apparent accessibility by use of an access device 190 to the actual message content
as the principle teaching value of Cloutier, it appears to us from our study of this
reference’s portion relied upon by the examiner in the answer that it would have
suggested to the artisan the same capabilities as would be entirely contained within
wireless device 170 alone. This conclusion is buttressed by the clear teachings of
Stein as argued by the examiner to do this very thing. The nature of the
communication link between the access device 190 in figure 1 of Cloutier to the
messaging system server 120 in figure 1 of this reference is not specifically taught
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007