Appeal 2007-0149
Application 09/881,502
Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir.
1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
Reviewing Aravamudan shows that the portions of the reference
relied on by the Examiner does disclose determination of the importance of
communications received by the user based on set rules or personalized
criteria (col. 8, ll. 32-43). We note Appellant’s admission that this portion of
the reference teaches classifying notifications (Reply Br. 2). However,
Appellant maintains that the classified messages are communicated directly
to a user by Communication Services Platform (CSP) when the user is
online or directly to a user’s proxy when the user is offline (Reply Br. 2-3).
The Examiner’s response (Answer 7) further points to alternative disposition
of important events based on rules established by the user (Aravamudan, col.
9, ll. 35-40).
While we agree with Appellant’s assessment of the user’s proxy as an
alternative recipient of the messages when the user is offline (Aravamudan,
col. 8, ll. 56-60), we find that, as pointed out by the Examiner (Answer 7),
the user may establish alternate rules for disposing important event.
Aravamudan describes an example of such alternate disposition which
allows the CSP to hold important events in abeyance as a pending event until
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013