Appeal No. 2006-1090 Application No. 09/848,005 generating a display listing available transports based upon messages which have been generated by transports, means for enabling an operator to select from the listing of available transports a desired transport with which to request a communication session, and means for wirelessly transmitting a selection message which is indicative of the transport which has been selected by the operator and with which the operator desires to request a communication session. The examiner does not address the above-noted requirements in the statement of the rejection against claim 28. (Answer at 4.) The rejection seems to presuppose some suggestion for networking a plurality of financial document processing transports. According to the examiner, “[s]ince the whole of the system was controlled via a LAN, selection among such machines was possible via addressing using LAN protocols that included availability and thus selection.” (Answer at 7.) The only disclosure we find in the record of networking multiple financial document processing transports is in the instant specification (e.g., spec. at 6; Fig. 3). In any event, the rejection does not identify any such disclosure or suggestion in the applied references. Even assuming such a prior art teaching exists, the rejection fails to show why at least the above-noted requirements of claim 28 would necessarily follow or at least have been suggested, should a plurality of financial processing transports be networked. We thus are in ultimate agreement with appellant that the rejection fails to show anticipation or obviousness of the subject matter of claim 28. We do not sustain -7-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007