Appeal No. 2001-1467 Page 6
Application No. 08/687,039
obviousness.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992)). "’A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the
prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person
of ordinary skill in the art.’" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976)).
Here, Dalvi’s radio pager generates tones reproduced from musical data coded
in a paging signal. Specifically, “[t]he controller 210 . . . communicates the audio
composition to the audio generator 220 which reproduces 425 the audio composition.”
P. 4, ll. 33-35. The reference’s audio composition, however, is not an alert tone.
Rather than using the audio composition to alert a user of receipt of a selective call
message (“SCM”), Dalvi generates a separate alert tone. Specifically, “[u]pon
successfully storing the SCM in the memory 212, the controller provides an output to
the audio generator 220 causing the audio generator 220 to produce an audio alert.
The audio alert informs a subscriber that the SCM 30 has been received.” Id. at ll. 26-
30.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007