Appeal No. 1999-0297 Page 13
Application No. 08/502,253
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to independent claims 12, 17, and 22. Upon review of
claim 9, we find that the claim 9 is directed toward a method
of signal transmission from a transmitter to a plurality of
receivers, and therefore does not recite comparing a stored
address count with the address transmission number included in
the message header, as the "comparing" takes place in the
selective call receiver. Turning to claim 9, we find that
even though the claim does not recite comparing a stored
address count with the address transmission number included in
the message header, we find that claim 9 contains language
regarding the message frame that is neither taught nor would
have been suggested by the combined teachings of DeLuca and
Kane. For the reasons discussed, supra, we find that the
limitation of claim 9 that the message header "includes the
address transmission count of an address signal corresponding
to the message signal, said address transmission count
indicating a transmission order of each of the addresses
within said address field" is not taught or suggested by
DeLuca considered with Kane. We therefore conclude that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007