Appeal No. 2002-0410
Application No. 08/802,575
rejection, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 11, filed Sep. 29, 1998) and reply brief
(Paper No. 13, filed Mar. 4, 1999) for appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that Wang does not teach or suggest the use of “a bargain
information database” as recited in independent claims 1 and 9. We agree with
appellants.
The examiner maintains throughout the Final Rejection, the Examiner’s Answer
and Supplemental Examiner’s Answer that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to include any type of message information in the messaging
system of Wang, such as bargain information. We disagree with the examiner’s
conclusion which goes well beyond any level of reasonableness. If we were to find this
argument persuasive, we would have to find that any data is obvious in view of a
teaching of any other type of completely unrelated data. Here, Wang merely teaches
the storage of subscriber information for locating the customers in a customer paging
area and storage of the message to be processed. (Wang at col. 2). From this basic
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007