Appeal 2007-0209
Application 10/021,621
ISSUES
The pivotal issues on appeal before us are as follows:
(1) Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b), does Losee’s disclosure anticipate the
claimed invention when Losee teaches comparing the cost of not reviewing a
message with cost of reviewing the message to determine which course of
action is more cost-effective to the user?
(2) Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a), would one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the present invention have found that Badt’s disclosure in
combination with other references that the Examiner relies upon to render
the claimed invention unpatentable when Badt teaches analyzing a voice
message to determine a speaker’s identity to prioritize the voice message
accordingly?
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the outset, we note that the Examiner’s factual findings throughout
the Answer regarding the specific teachings of Smith, Aderlind, Marx,
Eggleston, Helfman, Cooper, Takkinen, Abu-Hakima, and Wright are not in
dispute. Similarly, the majority of Examiner’s findings with respect to Losee
and Badt are not in dispute except as outlined in the preceding paragraphs.
Accordingly, we are adopting the Examiner’s factual findings regarding the
cited references as they pertain to the undisputed claim limitations.
Appellants invented a method and system for displaying and
classifying messages in a user interface according to the user selected
priority values. (Specification 10, figure 1). Particularly, the user designates
certain preferences according to which their received messages should be
prioritized. Such preferences or priority values can be based on the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013