Appeal 2007-0209
Application 10/021,621
properties of the voice message, as recited in representative claim 1. (Br. 8,
Reply Br. 9). Additionally, Appellants contend for the same reasons that
Badt in various combinations with Takkinen, Abu-Hakima, Wright and
Eggleston, does not render claims 41 through 85 unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103 (a). (Br. 11, 12, Reply Br. 13).
The Examiner, in contrast, contends that Losee teaches comparing the
expected cost of not-reviewing a message with the cost of reviewing the
message to determine whether it is cost-effective for the user to review the
message. (Answer 4 and 34). Therefore, the Examiner concludes that Losee
anticipates the invention as recited in representative claim 23. (Id.) For the
same reasons, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill to combine Losee with Eggleston to yield the invention,
as recited in dependent claims 27 through 33. (Answer 21). Further, the
Examiner contends that Badt teaches analyzing a voice mail to identify the
speaker and to prioritize the voice message accordingly. (Answer 8, 36).
Therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Smith and Badt with
Aderlind, Marx, Eggleston, Helfman, Abu Hakima, Wright and Cooper to
yield the claimed invention, as recited in representative claim 1. (Id., 10, 12,
15, 18, 20). Similarly, the Examiner contends that it would have been
obvious to combine the teachings of Badt with those of Takkinen, Abu-
Hakima, Wright and Eggleston to yield the invention as recited in claims 41
through 85. (Answer 24, 27, 29).
We affirm.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013