Appeal No. 1997-0636
Application No. 08/312,959
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner, as the
basis for the obviousness rejection, proposes to modify the
selective call receiver disclosure of Akahori which includes a
plurality of test modes. In the Examiner’s view (Answer, page
5), Akahori discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 except
that Akahori relies on an external signal to initiate testing
rather than a user-controlled test switch. To address this
deficiency, the Examiner turns to Yamada which is also
directed to a selective call receiver but which initiates
testing by operation of a reset switch 11 illustrated in
Yamada’s Figure 2. The Examiner’s line of reasoning at pages
5 and 6 of the Answer is expressed as follows:
It would have been obvious at the time of the
invention to an artisan that the reset switch (11)
to [sic, of] Akahori which is used to set test modes
2-4 would be modified such that it would also
initiate test mode 1 thus making the selective call
receiver more user friendly by allowing the user to
initiate a test mode as evidenced by Yamada.
In response, Appellant, aside from a broad general
assertion at page 9 of the Brief, does not attack the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007