Appeal 2007-0149
Application 09/881,502
Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered (37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
Appellant argues that Aravamudan relates to use of instant messaging
wherein communications from a low priority buddy are directed to the user’s
proxy, whether the user is online or offline (Br. 5). Appellant concludes that
instead of facilitating deferral of the notification, low priority
communications are redirected to a proxy that is always available (id.). The
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s argument is focused on whether
determining the classification of a message in Aravamudan is the same as
the claimed notification classification which controls deferral of the
notification (Answer 7). Thus, the question before this panel is whether
Aravamudan’s handling of notification is deferral or redirection of the
notification.
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013