Appeal No. 1997-2246
Application 08/353,572
at special times, e.g., when a subscriber travels from one
zone to another, they do not transmit “the same messages.”
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner has not shown
that the disclosure of Schwendeman satisfies every feature of
claims 2 and 4. This deficiency, however, does not extend to
appellants’ claims 8 and 9.
The appellants contend that Schwendeman is not an
available prior art reference because the appellants have
submitted an affidavit to antedate the reference under 37 CFR
§ 1.131. The examiner, on the other hand, found that because
Schwendeman claims the same invention as does the appellants,
an affidavit under 37 CFR § 1.131 is unavailable to the
appellants to attempt
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007