Appeal No. 1997-2656
Application No. 07/907,472
agree with the examiner that a boundary address would necessarily need to be set, the
examiner has not addressed the details of the language of claim 3 with respect to the
plurality of respective different values which are displayed during the selection.
Therefore, we agree with appellants that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to dependent claim 3, and we will not
sustain the rejection of claim 3. Appellants identify at page 7 of the request for
rehearing, various general assertions at the conclusion of the brief at page 33
concerning the language of the claims and that these limitations are lacking in the prior
art. We do not find these general arguments to be specific arguments, and we find that
they are not persuasive.
In item (4) with respect to dependent claim 4, appellants argue that claims 1 and
4 have distinct differences. (See brief at page 13.) We agree that the claims are
different, but the examiner maintained it would have been obvious to adapt the prior art
to include the feature of informing the transmitter of the number of pages which can be
stored as suggested by Yoshida, and Yoshida would further suggest that the number of
audio messages which can be stored should be included. (See answer at pages 3-4.)
It is our understanding that the communication of the number of pages that can be
received would have been the "amount of capacity that is currently vacant . . ." as
recited in dependent claim 4. Therefore, we find that the examiner has addressed the
limitations recited in claim 4 to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007