Appeal No. 1999-0297 Page 11
Application No. 08/502,253
teaching or suggestion, nor has any persuasive line of
reasoning been provided by the examiner, for utilizing
transmission sequence numbers in DeLuca and then comparing the
address count with the transmission sequence number in order
to select a message. We find that DeLuca and Kane teach away
from the proposed combination advanced by the examiner because
of their different methods of transmission, i.e., grouped
messages versus single messages sent sequentially. We
additionally find that DeLuca and Kane teach away from the
claimed invention because Kane teaches providing a separate
sequence for each selective call receiver, whereas in DeLuca,
each signal received, as shown in Figure 4a, includes
addresses and message data intended for more that one
selective call receiver.
The examiner asserts (answer, page 9) that "one skilled
in the art recognizes including a means for associating an
address count with address transmission number would be to
compare the two for the purpose indicating a transmission
order of each addresses within the message field." Our
reviewing court has stated that "[o]bviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007