Appeal 2007-0929
Application 10/000,774
delivery error” for such a message is broad enough to read on an indication
that the intended network was experiencing transmission problems that
would have interfered with delivery of the message (id. at 9-10). Appellant
responds that the language of claim 21 indicates to one of ordinary skill in
the art that a message routing attempt was made, but the message was not
completely routed because of a delivery error (Reply Br. 2). Appellant
further argues that the term “to be routed” necessarily refers to an actual
delivery attempt previous to the setting of the route indicator value because
such value is dependent on an indication of delivery error of that message
and therefore must be based on a message that was actually sent to the
destination but was not completely delivered (Reply Br. 3).
We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation.
2. Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner reads the claimed “route indicator” having a “value”
that is “dependent on an indication of a delivery error for a message
previously to be routed to said destination” on the network availability status
of the current network after it has been changed to unavailable as a result of
experiencing transmission problems (Answer 9-10). The Examiner reads the
step of “selecting a route for said message . . . dependent on a value of a
route indicator” on Decision process 206 when it checks the availability of
the selected next network to determine that it is available before physically
connecting it as the new current network (id.).
Appellant concedes that Doviak’s network selection process is based
in part on network availability status (Reply Br. 2-3) but denies that the
network availability status represents a delivery error for a message
previously to be routed to said destination, as required by the claim.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013