Appeal No. 97-1504
Application No. 08/400,190
they clearly do not themselves encompass the method recited in
the claims before us, which deals with the presentations of
displays. The teachings of Wagai and Levine have been set
forth above, as have their deficiencies with regard to the
appellant’s independent claims. The examiner has not
explained what “limitations” in the patent claims form the
basis for the rejection, what teachings of Wagai and Levine
are relied upon, and how the references would be combined.
From our perspective, therefore, a prima facie case of
obviousness-type double patenting has not been established,
and we will not sustain this rejection.
Independent claim 27 stands rejected as being
unpatentable over Wagai in view of Tsunoda. This claim
requires that the pages be transferred sequentially to the
display of the pager “in response to a single short-duration
actuation of a multiple function switch,” and hold a displayed
page “in response to a second discrete actuation of said
multiple function switch.” As we explained above, this
teaching is not present in Wagai. The examiner states that
Tsunoda teaches “holding a display of a paged message for so
long as the switch is actuated,” and then concludes that “[i]t
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007