Appeal No. 1999-0297 Page 6
Application No. 08/502,253
Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,
788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We begin with claim 1. The examiner takes the position
(answer, page 5) that DeLuca teaches all of the claim
limitations, with the exception of "a message header having a
message which includes an associated address transmission
number and comparing an address count with the address
transmission number." To overcome this deficiency of DeLuca,
the examiner relies upon Kane for a teaching (answer, page 6)
of "a message which includes an associated message sequence
number (address transmission number) and compare[s] such with
an address count." According to the examiner (answer,
paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6) "one skilled in the art
recognizes there must be some means of associating an address
count and a message sequence number. One such means would be
to compare the count with the number."
Appellant asserts (brief, page 4) that DeLuca and the
present invention are directed to a system which sends
multiple messages grouped in a frame, whereas Kane is directed
to an entirely different transmission system which sends and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007