Appeal No. 2000-0264
Application No. 08/752,624 Page 10
met. Thus, even if the pager I.D. number represented a different
country from the number of the local server, i.e., paging someone
in a foreign country, the paging I.D. signal would include the
country code of the person being called in the second country,
and there would be no reason, nor any teaching or suggestion in
the prior art, to enter the country code of the paging I.D. a
second time. Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1. The
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is therefore
reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 6-9 and 12-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kane considered with
Lucas, Gaskill and Oliwa. We begin with independent claim 6. We
make reference to our findings, supra, with respect to the
teachings of Kane, Lucas, and Gaskill. We observe that claim 6
is of different scope than claim 1. Claim 6 recites that the
originating user telephones the first web site or server in a
first country to page the receiving user who is located in a
different country, with the originating user not necessarily
knowing what country the receiving user is located in. We find
that in Gaskill (col. 8., lines 56-68) the receiving user can
call the system and by pressing key 7, the user can enter the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007