Appeal No. 1999-1551
Application No. 08/547,736
Similarly, with regard to independent claim 14, the examiner contends that Connolly
discloses a handset which comprises a handset communication means for receiving
signals (Figure 1 and Figure 3), an alerting means (Figure 12 and column 11, lines 37-40)
and a handset processing means responsive to the handset communication means
receiving signals analogous to an {LCE-PAGE-REQUEST}, identifying Figure 1, Figure 12
and column 15, lines 25-47. Again, the examiner identifies the difference between the
invention and Connolly as the latter’s paging signal identifying the handset for which the
message is intended.
With regard to independent claims 1 and 14, the examiner argues that the instant
claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious since it “is often useful not to
specify a single handset in setting up a call, as in the case of dispatch operations. In this
way, only the mobile units which are not presently busy will answer the page. Krebs
teaches such a system in which no single handset is specified” [Paper No. 4-pages 3 and
5, the examiner citing Figure 9, #907, and column 6, lines 45-60 of Krebs). The examiner
then concludes that it would have been obvious to not specify a single handset as taught by
Krebs, in conjunction with the system taught by Connolly.
For their part, appellants argue that Krebs does not specifically teach the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007