Appeal No. 2000-0274
Application No. 08/724,568
the message. As indicated supra, Faris uses message deletion
when the memory does not have enough room for a new message.
Based upon the foregoing, we agree with appellants’
argument (brief, page 13) that the admitted prior art, Faris
and Hamamoto when considered singularly or in combination
neither teach nor would have suggested the claimed invention
set forth in claims
1 through 4, 9, 15 and 20. Accordingly, the obviousness
rejection of claims 1 through 4, 9, 15 and 20 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 5 through 8 and 10 is
likewise reversed because we agree with appellants’ argument
(brief, pages 15 and 16) that the message priority teachings
of DeLuca do not1
cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings of the admitted
prior art, Faris and Hamamoto.
We agree with the appellants’ argument (brief, pages 14
and 15) that the claimed “message length” set forth in claims
13 and 18 refers to a message, and not to a “fragment” of the
1In DeLuca, message deletion is used to make room in
memory for messages that take priority over the deleted
message (column 9, lines 23 through 59).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007