Appeal No. 1997-2656
Application No. 07/907,472
We address appellants’ arguments in the order presented in the request for
rehearing.
In item (1), appellants argue that the prior art disclosure of communicating an
available remaining memory space or data amount in a facsimile machine without
more, would not have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to display the number of
fixed-duration audio messages which may be received. Appellants argue that our
affirmance of the rejection of claim 1 overlooks the clear and patentable difference
between claim 1 and the prior art. (See Request for Rehearing at pages 1-2.) We
disagree as discussed in our Decision at pages 4, 5, and 8. Appellants have not
identified anything we have overlooked or misapprehended beyond a disagreement
with the result. Therefore, this argument has not persuaded us that there was an error
in our decision with respect to this item.
In item (2), appellants argue that our statement agreeing with the examiner with
respect to the combination of prior art teachings is “unrelated to the concept of
obviousness.” We acknowledge that the statement may have been able to be
drafted/crafted better, but we find that it conveyed our reasoned agreement with the
examiner’s combination of teachings. Restating our agreement with the examiner’s
combination of the teachings of the admitted prior art and the teachings of Yoshida, we
find that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to combine teachings of the APA concerning the well-known storage of both
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007