Appeal No. 2000-0612
Application No. 08/583,357
The examiner adds Arnold to the combination of Driessen,
Okada, and Lucas to reject claims 3 through 12 and 14 and adds
Harrison to the primary combination to reject claim 15. As
neither Arnold nor Harrison overcomes the shortcomings of
Driessen, Okada, and Lucas, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 3 through 12, 14, and 15.
As to the rejection of claim 16, the examiner admits that
Driessen fails to disclose the claimed steps of monitoring,
switching to a predetermined paging frequency, and acquiring a
long range pager broadcasting. The examiner contends that Yamada
fills in these gaps. However, as argued by appellants (Brief,
page 19), Yamada focuses on selecting one of many frequency
channels available for use by a WTS, whereas claim 16 recites
switching to a predetermined frequency. Further, Yamada selects
the strongest channel whereas the claim recites selecting the
strongest signal on a predetermined channel. Lastly, as stated
by appellants (Brief, page 20), Yamada is not related to long
range pagers, and therefore does not suggest the claimed steps
for "acquiring a long range pager broadcasting." As the examiner
admits that Driessen also does not disclose such steps, the
combination fails to meet each and every limitation of claim 16
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007