Appeal 2007-0717
Application 09/993,277
1 This appeal arises from the Examiner’s Final Rejection, mailed July 7, 2005.
2 The Appellants filed an Appeal Brief in support of the appeal on December 1,
3 2005, and the Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief on
4 August 9, 2006. A Reply Brief was filed on August 31, 2006.
5 PRIOR ART
6 The prior art references of record relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
7 appealed claims are:
8 Tarbotton US 6,757,830 B1 Jun. 29, 2004
9 (Oct. 3, 2000)
10 Miloslavsky US 6,732,156 B2 May 4, 2004
11 (effectively filed Feb. 6, 1997)
12
13 REJECTION1
14 Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
15 Miloslavsky and Tarbotton.
16 ISSUES
17 The issues pertinent to this appeal are
18 • Whether the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
19 over Miloslavsky and Tarbotton is proper.
20 o Whether the art applied shows or suggests routing email messages to
21 an appropriate one of a plurality of distributed email servers (All
22 claims; Br. 10-26; Reply Br. 2-10).
1 The Final Rejection included a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, which was withdrawn (Answer 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013