Appeal No. 2000-1711
Application 08/808,870
of available types of information and signals the system for that
information to be sent (Br6). It is argued that Indekeu does not
teach or suggest entering or addressing messages to particular
recipients (Br6). It is argued that there is no reason why one
of ordinary skill in the art would combine the complex character
entry and retrieval system of Metroka with Indekeu because
Indekeu only requires that a user select from a limited menu of
available information services (Br7-8).
We do not find where the examiner addresses these arguments.
It is not clear why the examiner applies Indekeu. Although
Indekeu is in a pager environment, the user merely makes a menu
selection and does not enter and transmit messages comprising a
sequence of characters. Thus, we agree with appellants that
there seems to be no motivation for one of ordinary skill to
provide the complex data entry device of Metroka. To the extent
that a pager environment is required, Metroka expressly teaches
that the input device can be used for a pager (col. 8, line 35),
which implies a pager having a need to enter and transmit data.
Indekeu is not seen to contribute to the rejection.
The examiner next finds (EA4) that Metroka does not disclose
the following limitations of claim 1:
an electronic controller for storing selected
characters and a sequence in which said selected characters
are selected, wherein said message comprises selected
characters, and said sequence of selected characters is
associated by said controller with a recipient identifier,
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007