Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 10088784"

See other formats


Attorney Docket No.: 1400-1072PC1 
Client Reference Number: 10072-US-PCTl 



REMARKS 

Claims 63, 64-68, 75-77, 79-81, 83, 86-92, 120 and 121 are 
currently pending, of which claims 63, 120 and 121 are in 
independent form. 

By way of this response, claims 63, 64, 83, 87-89, 91, 120 and 
121 have been amended. 

Claims 1-62, 69-74, 78, 82, 84-85 and 93-119 stand cancelled 
without prejudice, limitation, waiver or estoppel. 

Favorable reconsideration of the present application as 
currently constituted is respectfully requested. 

Regarding the Double Patenting Rejections 

In the pending Office Action, various double patenting 
rejections continue to be maintained over U.S. Patent No. 6,701,378 
as well as over co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 09/928,983 
and co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 10/671,162. It is 
believed that the pending double patenting rejections have been 
overcome or otherwise rendered moot by the present claim 
amendments. At any rate, without acquiescing in the asserted 
double patenting rejections, Applicant respectfully submits that 
Applicant is willing to file applicable terminal disclaimers in 
accordance with 37 C.F.R. §1.321, if necessary, once allowable 

-15- 



Attorney Docket No.: 1400-1072PC1 
Client Reference Number: 10072-US-PCT1 



subject matter in the present patent application is identified. 
Accordingly, it is requested that the pending double patenting 
rejections be held in abeyance. 

Regarding the Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §112 

Applicant appreciates the comments provided in the instant 
Office Action with respect to the rejection of claims 78, 87 and 88 
under 35 U.S.C. §112, 2 nd Paragraph. Responsive thereto, Applicant 
has appropriately amended the claims by way of the present 
response. It is therefore believed that the pending §112 
rejections have been overcome. 

Regarding the Claim Rejections - 3 5 U.S.C. §103 

In the pending Office Action, claims 63-74, 76-82, 86, 89-91, 
93, 94, 97, 101, 113-118, 120 and 121 stand rejected under 35 
U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over AirMobile Communication 
Server Guide ("AirMobile Software for Lotus cc:Mail Wireless," 
Motorola Publication, 1995, hereinafter "AirMobile Server") in view 
of U.S. Patent No. 6,636,965 to Beyda et al. (hereinafter the Beyda 
reference) . Additionally, various remaining dependent claims stand 
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over a 
number of art combinations: claims 83-85, 87, 88, 95, 98-100 and 

-16- 



Attorney Docket No.: 1400-1072PC1 
Client Reference Number: 10072-US-PCT1 

119 over the AirMobile Server and Beyda references in view of U.S. 
Patent No. 6,745,230 to Cao et al. (hereinafter the Cao reference); 
claim 75 over the AirMobile Server and Beyda references in view of 
U.S. Patent No. 6, 138, 146 to Moon et al. (hereinafter the Moon 
reference) ; and claim 96 over the AirMobile Server, Beyda and Cao 
references in view of the Moon reference . 

Applicant respectfully submits that the foregoing §103 (a) 
rejections have been overcome or otherwise rendered moot by the 
present amendment. As currently constituted, the embodiments of 
the present disclosure are directed to providing a common address 
scheme with respect to reply messages within a message redirection 
architecture that involves a wireless redirector host system. 
Because of the common address scheme, when a sender sends a data 
message for a user served by a messaging host system, the sender is 
capable of receiving a reply message that appears as though it 
originated from the user's email address associated with the 
messaging host system rather than the user's wireless mobile 
communication device even where the data message was redirected to 
the wireless mobile communication device and the reply message was 
generated thereat. Base claim 63 is directed to an embodiment of 
a method of redirecting data messages between a messaging host 
system and a wireless mobile communication device that involves, 

-17- 



Attorney Docket No.: 1400-1072PC1 
Client Reference Number: 10072-US-PCT1 



inter alia, receiving a data message from a sender at the messaging 
host system for the user with a first address at the messaging host 
system, redirecting a copy of the data message to the user's 
wireless mobile communication device by way of a wireless 
redirector host system, receiving a reply message from the wireless 
mobile communication device that is responsive to the data message, 
and causing the reply message to transmitted to the sender of the 
data message wherein the user's first address is configured as the 
reply message's originating address. As currently amended, base 
claims 120 and 121 also include substantially similar features. 

Applicant notes that the AirMobile reference continues to be 
relied on as the primary reference for purposes of the pending 
§103 (a) rejections. As argued previously, AirMobile is limited to 
a "server push" message delivery model (see pages 25-27 of the 
AirMobile reference, under subsection heading "Messaging Models" on 
page 25) which requires that the communication server (i.e., Comm 
Server in Figure 1-1) be resident on the same local area network as 
the mail server (i.e., cc:Mail Post Office). Additionally, the 
AirMobile reference is deficient with respect to the limitations 
relating to the common address scheme as currently claimed. In 
particular, AirMobile does not teach or suggest the feature of 
causing a reply message generated at the mobile communication 

-18- 



Attorney Docket No.: 1400-1072PC1 
Client Reference Number: 10072-US-PCTl 



device to be transmitted to the sender of a message wherein the 
user's first address (i.e., the email address associated with the 
mail server) is configured as the reply message's originating 
address . 

The foregoing deficiencies of AirMobile are not cured, 
however, by the various secondary and tertiary references as 
applied in the pending Office Action. The Beyda reference appears 
directed to a message processing system that allows a user to 
create message for delivery to a number of recipients over local 
area network or wide area network connections. The Cao reference 
is directed to a new feature for email services which provides a 
telephone call alert to a particular email user when their email 
server, web page email server, or other email receiving server 
receives new email addressed to them. The Moon reference discloses 
a mail forwarding system for use in a private network having a 
server, a fixed computer and a router for connection to a public 
network external to the private network, all interconnected via a 
data connection, with the server controlling email resources when 
email addressed to a user of the fixed computer is received by the 
private network. The mail forwarding system includes a mail 
forwarding program operating in the fixed computer for controlling 
the fixed computer to selectively: (a) retrieve email addressed to 

-19- 



Attorney Docket No.: 1400-1072PC1 
Client Reference Number: 10072-US-PCTl 



the user of the fixed computer from the private network; and (b) 
transmit the received email via the router to an assigned address 

in the public network accessible by a communicator remote to the 

private network. These references, either alone or in any 

combination, do not teach or suggest all the limitations of the 
claims as currently constituted. 

Based on the foregoing analysis, it is believed that all 

pending claims of the present application are in condition for 
allowance over the applied art of record. 



-20- 



Attorney Docket No.: 1400-1072PC1 
Client Reference Number: 10072-US-PCT1 

Fee Statement 

Compared to the highest number previously paid for, the number 
of independent claims has not increased and the total number of 
claims has not increased. Applicant is filling herewith a Petition 
for a Two-Month Extension of Time. Accordingly, payment via 
electronic filing is being authorized in the applicable amount (s) . 
Applicant believes no further fees are due for the filing of this 
response. If any additional fees are due or any overpayments have 
been made, however, please charge or credit our deposit account 
(Deposit Account No. 03-1130) . 



-21- 



Attorney Docket No.: 1400-1072PC1 
Client Reference Number: 10072-US-PCT1 



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 

In view of the fact that none of the art of the record, 
whether considered alone or in combination discloses, anticipates 
or suggests the pending claims, and in further view of the above 
remarks, reconsideration of the Action and allowance of the present 
patent application are respectfully requested and are believed to 
be appropriate. 

Dated this 28 th day of April, 2008. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/Shreen K. Danamraj/ 

Shreen K. Danamraj 
Registration No. 41,696 

DANAMRAJ & EMANUELSON, P.C. 
Premier Place, Suite 1450 
5910 North Central Expressway 
Dallas, Texas 75206 
Tel (214) 750-5666 
Fax (214) 363-8177 



-22-