Appeal No. 1999-0297 Page 12
Application No. 08/502,253
suggestions of the inventor." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1087, 37 USPQ 2d at 1239 (Fed. Cir.
1995), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983). We
find the examiner's assertion of what is known by one of
ordinary skill in the art to be conclusionary and unsupported
by evidence. From our review of the record, we find no
suggestion, other than from appellant's disclosure, of
replacing the incremental sequencing of the messages with a
message sequence in a message header, and then comparing the
address count with the transmission number stored in the
message header. Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 1.
With respect to the other independent claims 9, 12, 17,
and 22, we note that appellant asserts (brief, page 4) that
all of the independent claims include selecting a message by
comparing an address count with an address transmission number
that is stored in the message header by the transmitter. We
find that independent claims 12, 17, and 22 contain language
similar to claim 1. Accordingly, we find that the examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007