Appeal No. 2002-2000
Application No. 08/933,911
if yes, determining if said telephone number is stored in a
Visitor Location Register of the serving system; and
if yes, paging the mobile station in the serving system.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Reininghaus 5,898,922 Apr. 27, 1999
(§ 102(e) date Nov. 19, 1996
and PCT Pub. Date Nov. 30, 1995)
Lee WO 96/20574 Jul. 4, 1996
(PCT Patent Application)
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence
of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Lee in view of
Reininghaus.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief for
appellant’s positions and to the final rejection and answer for the
examiner’s positions.
OPINION
We reverse the examiner’s stated rejection and institute a new
rejection under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
There appears to be no dispute between appellant and the
examiner with respect to the teachings in Lee. On the other hand,
as appellant points out generally in the brief and reply brief, the
examiner’s position with respect to Reininghaus according to the
rejection set forth in the final rejection focuses upon a Mobile
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007