Appeal No. 95-2571
Application 08/245,053
OPINION
Claims 5-12, 14-21 and 23-24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Brightwell in view of
Motles. Claims 13 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Brightwell in view of Motles and further
in view of Morten.
We reverse for the reasons given by Appellants,
amplified as follows.
The examiner’s statement of the rejection does not
address all of the claim limitations. In particular, it does
not address the penultimate limitation that the resumed
message transmission takes place “over said first route.” For
this reason alone, we would have to reverse.
Even after this recitation was argued by appellant
in the Appeal Brief, the examiner did not directly address it.
In fact, the examiner truncates Claim 5 so as to exclude the
recitation. Examiner’s Answer at 7.
The examiner contends generally that Brightwell
“suggests the use of the alternate route, col. 6, lines 19-
22.” Examiner’s Answer at 8. We are uncertain what the
examiner means by “the use of the alternate route.” In any
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007