Appeal No. 2000-0274
Application No. 08/724,568
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 10, 13, 15, 18 and 20.
According to the examiner (answer, page 4), “[t]he
admitted prior art includes all the claimed limitations except
for the claimed receiving a message length command (indicating
the length of the pending message) which is used to determine
if there is sufficient memory in the receiver,” “Faris shows a
system in which the memory full determination is based upon
the length of an incoming message,” and “Hamamoto shows a
system in which the transmitter transmits a message length
command to indicate the length of a pending message.” Based
upon the teachings of the admitted prior art, Faris and
Hamamoto, the examiner contends (answer, page 4) that “it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to have utilized a message length
command to assist in determining if there is sufficient memory
in the receiver of the admitted prior art system, since this
would make the admitted prior art system accurate and user
friendly (more automated).”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007