Appeal 2007-0717
Application 09/993,277
1 o Whether the art applied shows or suggests routing from a web server
2 or default server (claims 2, 4 and 14; Br. 17-18 and 22).
3 o Whether the art applied shows or suggests a web server creating an
4 email message to communicate the submitted information (claim 5;
5 Br. 18-19).
6 o Whether the art applied shows or suggests messages that contain
7 characteristic information regarding user language, location, or
8 country (claims 7-8, 10-12, and 18; Br. 19-24).
9 In particular, Appellants contend that Miloslavsky teaches routing the emails
10 from the email server 102 to a client computer based on the user logged onto the
11 client computer, and thus, Miloslavsky is not concerned with routing of an email
12 message to an appropriate one of a plurality of email servers, but instead addresses
13 how, once an email message is received at an email server, to route the email
14 message to one of a plurality of different clients of the email server (Br. 13-14).
15 Appellants further contend that applying Miloslavsky to email servers would
16 change its principle of operation and that Tarbotton does not require separate e-
17 mail servers for each recipient and that merely because support persons may be
18 located in different remote areas does not require separate e-mail servers for those
19 persons to be able to receive e-mails. (Br. 15-16).
20
21 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
22 The following Findings of Fact (FF), supported by a preponderance of
23 evidence, are pertinent to the above issues.
24 01. Miloslavsky involves a system for routing an e-mail to one of a plurality
25 of support persons in a processing center. The system comprises an e-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013