Appeal 2007-0717
Application 09/993,277
1 known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent
2 can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” 127 S.
3 Ct. at 1732, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
4 ANALYSIS
5 Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Miloslavsky and
6 Tarbotton.
7 From the Findings of Fact, supra, we conclude that
8 • The art applied shows or suggests routing email messages to an appropriate
9 one of a plurality of distributed email servers (FF 11) (All claims; Br. 10-26;
10 Reply Br. 2-10).
11 • The art applied shows or suggests routing from a web server or default
12 server (FF 15& 16) (claims 2, 4 and 14; Br. 17-18 and 22).
13 • The art applied shows or suggests a web server creating an email message to
14 communicate the submitted information (FF 15) (claim 5; Br. 18-19).
15 • The art applied shows or suggests messages that contain characteristic
16 information regarding user language, location, or country (FF 18) (claims 7-
17 8, 10-12, and 18; Br. 19-24).
18 The Appellants contend primarily that Miloslavsky only routes to end users
19 rather than to an email server and that Tarbotton does not necessarily show that
20 routing among Miloslavsky’s recipients necessitates routing through multiple
21 email servers. However, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known
22 in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can
23 provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” (See KSR,
24 supra). Certainly it was known at the time of the invention that call centers
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013