Appeal No. 2002-0252
Application No. 08/735,159
an identification of data service,
an identification of the service provided,
an identification of the area coverage of the data
service.
Furthermore, appellant discloses (id. at pages 7 and 8, and
Figures 3A-3N) that the data service comprising of supplementary
information can be described in various forms as illustrated in
Figures 3A-3N. Appellant concludes (id. at page 9) that the
various addresses (Figures 3I, 3J, 3G and 3H, respectively) can
be reserved for transferring information for linking the data
service to data services provided on other networks. To counter
this evidence by appellant regarding the meaning of a data
service, the examiner has not provided any factual evidence to
support his own different interpretation of a data service.
Therefore, we decide to use appellant’s interpretation of the
data service.
Keeping in mind this definition of the data service, we
first review the rejection of claims 2, 5 and 7 through 10 over
Lanzetta in view of Mankovitz.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness (see In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007