Appeal No. 1997-0606
Application No. 08/169,048
argument is not persuasive because the home station in Frost
must determine the geographic location of the pager based on
the remote station which reports the new location to the home
station. We agree with the examiner that the invention as set
forth in these claims is fully met by the disclosure of Frost.
We now consider the rejection with respect to claim 3.
As noted above, claim 3 was rejected in the final rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of Frost, Beeson
and Heffernan. Appellant’s brief responds to this rejection.
The examiner’s answer has changed the rejection of claim 3 set
forth in the final rejection to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
102 as anticipated by the disclosure of Frost.
In the final rejection, the examiner indicated that Frost
did not fully disclose the limitations recited in claim 3
[second final rejection, pages 5-6], however, the examiner
cited Heffernan for teaching the different data rates of claim
3. The examiner has not shown in the answer, however, where
this feature of claim 3 suddenly appeared in the disclosure of
Frost. Thus, the examiner has never supported the present
rejection of claim 3 based on Frost alone. Therefore, the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007