Appeal No. 2000-0272
Application No. 08/922,715
Appellants argue (brief, pages 11 and 12) that Balachandran
is concerned with scanning channels until a good one is found
(i.e., “‘re-establishment’”) as opposed to re-registration after
expiration of a timing interval. Appellants have not challenged
the examiner’s finding (answer, page 5) that “Fascenda shows the
advantages of over the air broadcasting to indicate parameters
which are used to control the pager’s operation,” but they do
argue (brief, page 13) that “there is no teaching, suggestion, or
motivation given in the admitted prior art, Balachandran, or
Fascenda for a timer that starts upon the loss of a channel and
for a re-registration on the same channel.”
We agree with appellants’ arguments. Neither the
acknowledged prior art nor the applied references teaches or
would have suggested re-registration after the expiration of a
timing interval. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1,
3 through 5 and 9 through 13 is reversed.
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1,
3 through 5 and 9 through 13 is sustained pro forma because
appellants’ only response to the rejection is that they “will
file a Terminal Disclaimer when allowable subject matter exists
in the application” (brief, page 15).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007