Appeal No. 2000-0272
Application No. 08/922,715
Claims 1, 3 through 5 and 9 through 13 stand rejected under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting based upon claims 1 through 4 found in U.S. Patent No.
5,710,547.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 5) and the
answer (paper number 6) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1,
3 through 5 and 9 through 13, and sustain the obviousness-type
double patenting rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5 and 9 through
13.
According to the examiner (answer, pages 4 and 5), “[t]he
applicant admits that in the prior art a typical pager
transceiver sends a re-registration signal on a reverse channel
upon loosing [sic, losing] the forward channel,” and “[i]n an
analogous art, Balachandran teaches the use of a timer to ensure
that re-establishment occurs with sufficient frequency yet does
not interfere with the communication capacity.” Based upon these
teachings, the examiner concludes (answer, page 5) that “it would
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007