Appeal No. 1999-2028
Application No. 08/769,036
official notice was taken. Appellants do not point to the
specific Official Notice taken for claims 74 and 75. We
assume that the examiner's Official Notice that elements were
well-known and common are as of the effective filing date of
the present application. Thus, we do not consider this
general attack as particularly pointing out deficiencies in
the examiner's rejection as required by 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Claim 89 recites a "control processor ... for maintaining
operation only in the CDPD mode until receiving an indication
of analog cellular operation." Appellants argue (Brief, page
13) that this limitation is not shown by the references. We
agree that Braitberg does not disclose such a control
processor. Further, as the examiner has not addressed this
limitation, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. Consequently, we must reverse the
rejection of claim 89.
For the limitation of claim 91, the examiner asserts
(Answer, page 9) that it would have been obvious to use two
processors instead of one for parallel processing of the
analog and CDPD signal circuitries. Appellants merely state
that the claim limitation "is not shown by the prior art."
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007