Appeal 2007-0209
Application 10/021,621
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Losee’s disclosure anticipates the claimed
invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) when Losee teaches comparing the cost
of reviewing a message with the loss of opportunity resulting from not
reviewing the message to determine which course of action is more cost-
effective to the user. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
present invention, would have found that Badt’s disclosure in combination
with other references that the Examiner relies upon to render the claimed
invention unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) when Badt teaches
analyzing a voice message to determine a speaker’s identity to prioritize the
voice message accordingly.
separate argument with respect to the dependent claims, those claims stand
or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d
588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013