Appeal No. 1999-1551
Application No. 08/547,736
Krebs with the PCS system of Connolly, still leaving the trunked dispatch system as an
independent system. Therefore, in appellants’ assessment, any capability to notify more
than one communication unit at a time with a page request signal, if it exists at all, would
be limited to the trunked dispatch system portion of the hybrid system. According to
appellants, there is no suggestion to modify only the PCS system of Connolly so as to
provide a setup or alerting messaging capability that would enable more than one handset
to be contacted with a single message.
We disagree with appellants’ argument since it presumes a bodily incorporation of
the Connolly PCS system into the cellular telephone system portion of Krebs.
35 U.S.C. § 103 does not require bodily incorporation of an element of one reference into
another reference. Only a clear suggestion for modifying a reference is required. Further,
the instant rejection is not based on modifying Krebs by Connolly but, rather, it is based on
modifying the primary reference to Connolly by teachings of the secondary reference to
Krebs. That is, Connolly was cited as a reference disclosing the subject matter of
independent claims 1 and 14 but for the paging signal specifying no single handset.
Connolly does specify a single handset to which the paging signal is directed. However,
the examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Connolly in order to
provide a paging signal directed to no single handset because an artisan viewing the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007