Appeal No. 1999-2028
Application No. 08/769,036
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art reference, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 67,
68, 71, 73 through 82, 88, 90 through 93, and 95 and reverse
the obviousness rejection of claims 69 and 89.
Regarding Group I, appellants assert (Brief, page 6) that
Braitberg does not mention CDPD nor paging. Also, appellants
contend (Brief, page 11) that "nothing in Braitberg ...
permits handling of both analog cellular signals and CDPD
signals." As pointed out by the examiner (Answer, page 10),
paging is not recited in the claims, and, therefore, cannot be
relied upon as evidence of non-obviousness. Further, as the
examiner combines appellants' admissions as to the prior art
with Braitberg for the limitations concerning CDPD,
appellants' argument that Braitberg does not mention CDPD
fails to address the rejection.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 7) that their disclosure of
"the difficulty of integrating the features of AMPS voice
transmission with applications such as data transmission,
electronic mail, duplex paging, etc. ... teaches strongly away
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007