Appeal 2007-0148
Application 10/964,939
least in part based on message content," where the limitation "at least in part
is based on message content" was added from original dependent claim 7.
Appellants argue that the rejection relies on Hullfish, paragraphs 11 and 29,
"but there is absolutely no teaching or suggestion in the relied-upon portions
of Hullfish et al. that the messaging engine used to forward the message is
selected based on content" (Br. 5) and the rejection should be reversed.
The Examiner finds that paragraph 58 of Hullfish teaches that the
dynamic message control server determines whether to forward the SMS
text message as an SMS message regardless of the availability of the IM
(instant messenger) receiver based on user preference and paragraph 23,
line 11, states that the identity of the telephone number in the message is
maintained (Answer 11). The Examiner reasons that "Because the telephone
number is part of the message content, therefore, the determination of the
dynamic message control server where the message to forward based on
telephone number, that is based on the message content" (Answer 11).
Appellants argue that paragraph 58 "says nothing about message
content at all, much less using it to decide which messaging engine to use"
(Reply Br. 1). Appellants argue that the Examiner's statement that the
telephone number is part of the message is confused because the decision to
forward is based on user preferences, not the telephone number, and is
irrelevant because claim 1 requires determining which messaging engine to
use, not whether to forward based on message content (Reply Br. 2).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013