Appeal No. 2000-0150
Application 08/661,440
apparent, exactly how the examiner proposes to modify Fennell's
display to incorporate Kirk's "tokens."
For the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the rejection
of claim 7 and its dependent claims 9-11 over Fennell in view of
Kirk. For the same reasons, we cannot sustain the rejection over
these references of claim 1, which is narrower than claim 7 in
that it is limited to a "wireless messaging unit." Because the
above deficiencies are not cured by Hosack, Kasparian, and Shiff,
we cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-6, 8, 12,
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007