Appeal No. 1998-1259
Application No. 08/264,817
appellants' specification discloses it to be known in the
prior art that wireless communication devices include both
radiotelephones and pagers. We note that both references
relied upon by the examiner as well as the specification use
similar language in referring to battery operated
communication devices that operate in the radio frequency (RF)
range and that all three of these documents have the same
assignee.
In response to the examiner's taking "Official Notice
that an incoming signal to a selective call receiver by means
of a telephone call is known in the art" (answer, page 4)
appellants assert that the term "is" in claim 6 has been
misconstrued by the examiner as "by means of." Appellants
maintain that in MacDonald and Connary, the selective call
receiver is not capable of receiving an incoming telephone
call because the selective call receiver is not capable of
telephone transmit functions (See brief, page 6). We also
find this argument unpersuasive for the same reason stated
above that we are of the opinion that the inventions of
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007