Appeal No. 2006-1090
Application No. 09/848,005
generating a display listing available transports based upon messages which have been
generated by transports, means for enabling an operator to select from the listing of
available transports a desired transport with which to request a communication session,
and means for wirelessly transmitting a selection message which is indicative of the
transport which has been selected by the operator and with which the operator desires to
request a communication session.
The examiner does not address the above-noted requirements in the statement of
the rejection against claim 28. (Answer at 4.) The rejection seems to presuppose some
suggestion for networking a plurality of financial document processing transports.
According to the examiner, “[s]ince the whole of the system was controlled via a LAN,
selection among such machines was possible via addressing using LAN protocols that
included availability and thus selection.” (Answer at 7.)
The only disclosure we find in the record of networking multiple financial
document processing transports is in the instant specification (e.g., spec. at 6; Fig. 3). In
any event, the rejection does not identify any such disclosure or suggestion in the
applied references. Even assuming such a prior art teaching exists, the rejection fails to
show why at least the above-noted requirements of claim 28 would necessarily follow or
at least have been suggested, should a plurality of financial processing transports be
networked. We thus are in ultimate agreement with appellant that the rejection fails to
show anticipation or obviousness of the subject matter of claim 28. We do not sustain
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007