Appeal No. 98-1394 Page 8
Application No. 08/325,448
For its part, Wohl teaches a paging receiver 18. Col. 3,
l. 2. The paging receiver, however, is not used to receive
controlling data of any sort, let alone transmitter
controlling data. To the contrary, the paging receiver 18
merely receives a “paging signal ....” Col. 2, l. 13. The
paging signal is a “telephone number,” col. 1, l. 34, rather
than controlling data.
The examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that Borras
or Hatano remedies the defects of Rackley and Wohl. Because
the references do not teach using a paging receiver to receive
controlling information of any sort, we are not persuaded that
teachings from the prior art would appear to have suggested
the claimed limitation of using a paging receiver to receive
transmitter controlling data. The examiner has impermissibly
relied on the appellants’ teachings or suggestions; he has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007