Appeal No. 1997-0899
Application No. 08/127,268
system clearly transmits destination addresses for each
message to be sent from the primary station. Since the
primary station in Mabey is fixed, there is no need to
identify the source address of the selected station. The
artisan would have found it obvious, however, to include the
source address where different stations were capable of
operating as the primary station. In any network the stations
must be aware of which other stations they are talking to.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 13.
With respect to the claims of Group IV as represented
by claim 5, appellants argue that the collective teachings of
Mabey, Fujiwara and Messenger do not teach or suggest the
identification of the number of messages by a count portion as
recited in claim 5 [brief, pages 15-16]. The examiner added
Messenger to the previously discussed combination of Mabey and
Fujiwara to meet this recitation of claim 5. We have
considered the teachings of Messenger, and we can find no
teaching or suggestion therein of using a count portion in the
claimed manner to control the powering down of receiving
stations after the indicated number of messages have been
received. We agree with appellants that a prima facie case of
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007