Appeal No. 2003-0247
Application No. 09/185,924
communication attempt was directed, and the examiner has not
explained how Thro and Walton would have fairly suggested doing
so to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5 the examiner argues that Thro discloses
“after failing to establish communications between the first and
second communication units, trying to communicate a message via
the first communications unit to a pager associated with the
second system (see column 2, lines 1-51, column 3, line 52 to
column 4, line 55, column 5, lines 7-20)” (answer, page 6). Thro
discloses sending a message from a computer to either a pager or
a two-way radio (col. 3, lines 30-44), but does not disclose
sending a message to either the pager or the two-way radio after
an attempt to send a message to either of those devices has
failed.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the appellant’s claimed invention.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007