Appeal No. 2001-1467 Page 4
Application No. 08/687,039
even further in view of either Wong or Kawashima and further in view of U.S. Patent
No. 4,885,577 (“Nelson”).
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellant in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. The examiner makes the following
assertions.
The paging message of Dalvi includes "definable audio" (page 1 line 36).
The calling party in the Dalvi system composes not only the message but
also an audio compostition [sic] comprising a sequencd [sic] of audio
tones using the composer 105 which could be a keyboard or a musical
instrument (page 2 lines 30-35). The receiver 120 then sends the
message data to the display and communicates the audio composition to
th [sic] eaudio [sic] generator 220 which reproduces the audio composition
at step 425 (see page 4 lines 33-35). Clearly the received message is
responsible for the audio alert which is generated to indicate the message
is being displayed (see figure 4).
(Examiner's Answer at 6.) The appellant argues, "Dalvi does not teach or suggest ‘a
melody generator which generates said alert tone . . . , said alert tone corresponding to,
and reproducing at least a portion of the musical note data [contained within the
message being received]’, as required by Appellant's independent claim[s]. . . ."
(Appeal Br. at 6.)
“Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?”
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007