Appeal No. 2000-0612
Application No. 08/583,357
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3 through 17,
19, and 20.
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite a first communication
channel and a plurality of long range pagers which share a second
communication channel. The examiner admits (Answer, page 6) that
Driessen and Okada fail to disclose the long range pagers sharing
a communication channel. The examiner turns to Lucas to remedy
this deficiency. Specifically, the examiner asserts (Answer,
page 6) that "Lucas, teaches the utilization a single channel or
wherein the transmitters share one communication channel." The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the
combination of Driessen and Okada "by utilizing a single channel
for all the long range pagers as taught by Lucas in order to
minimize the amount of interference caused by the communication
system."
However, as pointed out by appellants (Brief, page 10), to
modify Driessen with the teachings of Okada, the examiner states
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007