Appeal No. 2002-1696 Page 6
Application No. 08/921,884
messages about sports events," col. 3, ll. 1-2; "the same message is provided to all of
the receivers 110." Id. at ll. 19-20.2
The examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Fascenda
cures the aforementioned deficiency of King. Absent a teaching or suggestion of a
message comprising records, each record including data customized to a subscriber
that will receive the message, we are unpersuaded of a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 1; of claim 2-9,
which depend therefrom; of claim 10; of claims 11-16, which depend therefrom; of
claim 17; and of claims 18 and 19, which depend therefrom.
Besides addressing the examiner's rejection, the appellant expresses his "wishes
to appeal the objection to claims 14 and 16 under CFR 1.75(c)." (Appeal Br. at 3.)
Rather than by appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, however, such
an objection is to be settled by petition to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, neither the examiner's statement of the objection nor the appellant's
arguments attacking the objection were considered in deciding this appeal.
2Upon receipt of the same message, the radio receivers "decide whether to
display all or part of the information." (Appeal Br. at 9.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007