Appeal No. 1999-0154
Application 08/553,201
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to independent claims 1, 5, 7, and 11.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of independent claims 1, 5, 7, and 11, nor of claims
2-4 and 8-10 dependent thereon, based on Olsen.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of dependent claims 6 and 12 in which the
Ahearn reference is added to Olsen, we do not sustain this
rejection as well. It is apparent from the Examiner’s
analysis (Answer, page 12) that Ahearn is relied on solely to
address the claimed routing and authorization features. We
find nothing, however, in the disclosure of Ahearn which would
overcome the innate deficiencies of Olsen discussed supra.
In conclusion, since the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of independent claims 1, 5, 7, and 11 and claims 2-4, 6, 8-10,
and 12 dependent thereon, cannot be sustained. Therefore, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-12 is reversed.
REVERSED
-9-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007