Appeal No. 1998-1259
Application No. 08/264,817
artisan to have one of the plurality of distinctive audible
(or visual as per claim 10) alert patterns and one of the
distinctive tactile alert patterns have substantially the same
distinctive alert pattern as recited in claims 9 and 10 on the
basis of the evidence provided.
We are in agreement with appellants that there is no
teaching or suggestion in MacDonald or Connary, alone or in
combination, of having the patterns of the audible, visual and
tactile alerts correspond when the particular desired3
communication signal is received. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3We construe appellants' use of the term "correspond" in
the brief to mean "substantially the same" as set forth on the
claims.
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007