Appeal No. 1998-1259
Application No. 08/264,817
as a basis for obviousness , looking at what the teachings of2
the references considered together fairly suggest, it would
have been an obvious enhancement of the selectable frequency
tactile alert of MacDonald to provide the tactile alert
generator with different tactile alerts for particular desired
communications signals received, as taught by Connary.
Additionally, with respect to appellants' statement
(brief, page 6) that in Connary "the same customized alert
signal is generated for all signals having the predetermined
address identifying the particular selective call receiver 10
are received" we note that appellants' statement is correct,
if the selective call received of Connary has a single
predetermined address. However, we note that Connary
additionally states that "In summary, a user of the selective
call receiver 10 may create specialized custom alerts for the
selective call receiver 10 or for each address of a selective
2We note that nonobvious structures may well be
functionally equivalent; see In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 587-98,
118 USPQ 340, 347 (CCPA 1958).
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007