Appeal No. 98-1394 Page 8 Application No. 08/325,448 For its part, Wohl teaches a paging receiver 18. Col. 3, l. 2. The paging receiver, however, is not used to receive controlling data of any sort, let alone transmitter controlling data. To the contrary, the paging receiver 18 merely receives a “paging signal ....” Col. 2, l. 13. The paging signal is a “telephone number,” col. 1, l. 34, rather than controlling data. The examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that Borras or Hatano remedies the defects of Rackley and Wohl. Because the references do not teach using a paging receiver to receive controlling information of any sort, we are not persuaded that teachings from the prior art would appear to have suggested the claimed limitation of using a paging receiver to receive transmitter controlling data. The examiner has impermissibly relied on the appellants’ teachings or suggestions; he has not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. � 103(a).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007