Appeal No. 1999-1551
Application No. 08/547,736
known] coding schemes” [Paper No. 4-page 6]. However, as argued by appellants
[principal brief-page 14], the claimed bit format is no mere design choice but “is selected
to enable multiple handsets to simultaneously generate alerting indications for an incoming
call, within the constraints of a particular signalling format,” pointing to Table 1 and pages
9-11 of the instant specification.
Appellants’ argument appears reasonable to us and the examiner has not
responded to the allegation that there is a specific purpose for the claimed bit format.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 15 and 16 specify that the page request signal has an item of data
specifying that the signal indicates that the alerting means is to be activated (claim 15) or
that the alerting means is to be deactivated, for deactivating the alerting means (claim 16).
While the examiner merely alleges that the invention would perform equally well with
any well known coding scheme, and this rejection might have been overcome by a showing
by appellants that there is a particular advantage achieved by the specifying data of claims
15 and 16, appellants do not argue the examiner’s rejection of these claims except to set
forth the limitations of the claims [principal brief-pages 14-15] and to state that these
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007