Appeal No. 1996-4070
Application No. 08/367,930
being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Cronin and further
in view of Little.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answers for the 2
respective details thereof.
OPINION
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the collective evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 1 and 3-10. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claims 1, 3, 4, and 5, the
Examiner, as the initial basis for the obviousness rejection,
proposes to modify the message monitoring communications
system of Anderson by relying on Cronin to supply the missing
teaching of preparing the message block extracting masks
through an operator console. In addition, the Examiner, in
2The Appeal Brief was filed April 18, 1996. In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated June 28, 1996, a Reply Brief
was filed August 26, 1996. The Examiner entered the Reply
Brief and submitted a Supplemental Examiner’s Answer dated
December 4, 1996.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007