Appeal 2007-0929
Application 10/000,774
The Examiner rejected claims 21-36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Doviak and Robinson.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant urges that the proper
interpretation of the claimed term “previously to be routed to said
destination” delimits the delivery error to that of a message that has already
been tried to be sent or routed (Br. 3; Reply Br. 3). Based on such
interpretation, Appellant argues that the network selection criteria in Doviak
are based on the User Configuration parameters and not on an indication of a
delivery error of a previously sent message, as recited in the claims (Br. 4-
5). Therefore, the issue turns on whether there is a legally sufficient
justification for combining the disclosures of Doviak and Robinson and if
so, whether the combination of the applied references teaches the claimed
subject matter including selecting a route based on an indication of a
delivery error for a message previously to be routed to the destination.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are relevant to the issue involved
in the appeal and are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
1. Appellant’s claim 21 requires that the transmission route be
selected dependent on a value of a route indicator, whose value is dependent
on an indication of a delivery error for a message previously to be routed to
the destination. This recitation is consistent with the disclosure related to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013