Appeal 2007-2446
Application 09/817,998
Further, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in holding that the skilled artisan would combine the
features of the references. As discussed supra, Kuebert teaches that the user
of the mail forwarding system can be notified by telephone, and Lynt
teaches a tactile communication device used to receive phone calls. We
consider using Lynt’s device in the system of Kuebert to be a combination of
familiar items to perform their known functions, and that the combination
will yield predictable results. Further, as discussed supra, we consider the
Examiner to have established that it is known that users of a service pay for
the service. As the Examiner states, on page 11 of the Answer, this
generates revenue for the business providing the service.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments have not convinced
us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 11, 15 through
16, 19 through 21, and 23 through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
Rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
Appellant’s arguments have not convinced us that the Examiner erred
in deciding that the combination of the references makes obvious the
limitation of charging the user to receive the notification. We find that
Sherwood teaches that it is known in the art to charge for the notification of
the existence of a message. (Fact 1). While Sherwood teaches this in
conjunction with another type of mail system, voice mail vs. physical mail,
we do not consider the distinction in type of mail to be relevant to the
underlying fact that Sherwood teaches that it is known to charge for the
service of being notified of the existence of a message destined for the user.
As discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1, we consider the
Examiner to have established that it is known that users of a service pay for
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013