Appeal No. 2000-0264
Application No. 08/752,624 Page 15
equivalent to that of appellant, we find that appellant's
specification broadly describes the system as being composed of
towers, transmitters, receivers, web site/servers, telephone and
PCS, cell phones, pagers, etc; see i.e., figure 1. We find that
the prior art discloses similar components; see i.e., figure 2A
of Gaskill, figure 1 of Kane, and figure 2 of Oliwa, and
therefore conclude that the means-plus-function language of claim
12 is met by the prior art. Accordingly, we find that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness of
claims 12-14 that has not been successfully rebutted by
appellant. We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 12-14
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Turning to claim 15, we reverse the rejection of claim 15
based upon our findings, supra, with respect to claim 6.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 15, and claims 16 and 17
which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007