Appeal No. 1998-1259
Application No. 08/264,817
receiver 10 having two or more addresses (col. 3, lines 1-4
and col. 1, lines 49-57).
We are not persuaded by appellants' line of reasoning
(brief, page 5) that in Connary "one or more audio sounds,
such as a voice or tone combination, which comprise a
customized alert signal, ... does not teach or suggest
'different particular tactile alert patterns,' as claimed."
As Connary is directed to providing a different customized
audible alert for each address of a selective call receiver
having two or more addresses, we are of the opinion that in
view of the commonality of the different alerts in the prior
art, that it would have been well within the level of skill of
a routineer in the art to have customized the selective call
receiver of MacDonald to provide different tactile alerts when
different corresponding desired communications signals are
received. While we do not favor the examiner's language that
Connary's voice alert teachings are "functionally equivalent"
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007