Appeal No. 2000-0264
Application No. 08/752,624 Page 12
However, claim 6 additionally requires that "when the paging
system determines that the second country has not been designated
by the user, the paging system initiates paging operations in a
predetermined list of different countries in a predetermined
order in an attempt to page the receiving user." The examiner's
position (answer, page 8) is that it would have been obvious to
expand Oliwa's list of two locations to any number of areas.
However, we find that Oliwa discloses (col. 4, lines 8-25) that
in a system with two networks such as an on-site network and a
surrounding wide area paging network, that terminal 28 would
inherently know to which alternate paging network to transfer the
page. However, Oliwa continues that in the embodiment of a
nationwide or worldwide paging scheme, the wearer of the pager
would have to inform the Paging Network System One "of which
paging network system he would be able to receive." Thus, we
find no suggestion, other than from appellant's disclosure, of
"when the paging system determines that the second country has
not been designated by the user, the system initiates paging
operations in a predetermined list of different countries in a
predetermined order in an attempt to page the receiver user."
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness of claim 6. Accordingly, the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007