Appeal No. 2003-1598
Application 09/213,851
pager nor Dillon’s invention meets the claimed invention by
itself. The prior art pager does not meet the claimed invention
because the pager is not a client device that is configured to
receive e-mail notifications and e-mail messages as claimed. The
pager only receives e-mail notifications. Dillon’s invention
does not meet the claimed invention because e-mail notifications
are sent over a high speed link. The examiner’s attempt to
identify the high speed link of Dillon as a low speed link
because it may not be the highest speed link available is totally
without merit. Dillon calls the link a high speed link and that
is what is disclosed and suggested to the artisan. Since neither
the prior art pager nor Dillon’s invention meets the claimed
invention for reasons just noted, the examiner has attempted to
combine the low speed communications link of the prior art pager
with the two-link device of Dillon’s invention. These are
separate devices, however, and there is no indication that
elements from these two separate devices can be combined in a
single embodiment as proposed by the examiner.
It would have been helpful if the examiner had considered
the possibility that his position might have been incorrect, and
based on that possibility, had provided us with a factual record
on whether the claimed invention would have been obvious over the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007