Ex Parte BROWN et al - Page 5



          Appeal No. 2000-0150                                                        
          Application 08/661,440                                                      

          Dictionary of the English Language  1351 (New College Edition,              
          1975), which defines "token" in pertinent part as follows:                  
          "1. Something that serves as an indication or representation of             
          some fact, event, emotion, or the like; a sign; symbol."                    
          C.  The references and rejection                                            
               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          
          Kasparian et al. (Kasparian)  4,896,370           Jan. 23, 1990             
          Shiff                         5,088,070           Feb. 11, 1992             
          Hosack et al. (Hosack)        5,418,528           May  23, 1995             
          Fennell                       5,430,436           Jul.  4, 1995             
          Kirk et al. (Kirk)            5,768,578           June 16, 1998             
                                                  (Filed Feb. 27, 1995)               
               Claims 1, 7, and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103             
          as unpatentable for obviousness over Fennell in view of Kirk.               
               Claims 2-6, 8, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.               
          § 103 as unpatentable for obviousness over Fennell in view of               
          Kirk, Hosack, Kasparian, and Shiff.3                                        
               Fennel discloses a pager which allows a received message to            
          be modified by addition or deletion of alphanumeric characters              
          prior to being stored and also allows the generation and storage            

               3  Although the statements of this ground of rejection in              
          the final Office action (Paper No. 13, at 3) and the Answer                 
          (Paper No. 18, at 4) fail to include Kirk, it is apparent from              
          the discussion of the rejection that this is an oversight.                  
                                          5                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007