Appeal No. 2000-1594
Application No. 08/543,101
of Hara and Levanto’s cellular communication protocol (brief,
page 8 and reply brief, page 2).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that Roach and Levanto relate to communication devices containing
a paging receiver and a cellular transceiver (answer, pages 8 &
9). The Examiner further argues that the references can be
properly combined because they represent “different ideas in the
area of communication” (id.).
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). The conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown
by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings
of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
A review of Roach reveals that the reference relates to a
data messaging system for communicating data messages over the
control channel of a cellular network. Roach further discloses
that a paging receiver receives the data message from a paging
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007