Appeal No. 1997-1578
Application No. 08/212,292
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification. In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992). None of the problems sought to be
overcome by Sebestyen would be expected to exist in Newell. As
pointed out by Appellant in the Brief, Newell is directed to
interactive, real-time communication in which there would be
little need to utilize a stored message repeat feature such as
provided for by the pager of Sebestyen. We are left to
speculate why the skilled artisan would modify the rolling
display feature of Newell with that of Sebestyen. The only
reason we can discern is improper hindsight reconstruction of
Appellant’s claimed invention.
In view of the above discussion, it is our opinion that
the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness and, accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claims 12, 13, and 18, as well as claims 14-17 and
19 dependent thereon, cannot be sustained. Therefore, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 12-19 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007