Appeal No. 1998-2870
Application 08/429,954
RBr10). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
"to ignore subsequent inputs because to recognize such inputs
would tie up valuable system resources with needless redundant
signals" (EA6).
It is not persuasive to make up reasons to explain away a
limitation which may be difficult to address. Nevertheless, we
note that figure 9 of Biggs clearly shows only a single amenity
number per transaction, (there are no loops to get other amenity
numbers), which implies that subsequent inputs of a desired
service are ignored. Appellants are presumed to be aware of
express teachings of the references. The rejection of claim 31
is sustained.
- 18 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007