Appeal No. 2006-1978
Application No. 10/027,572
In view of the above discussion and analysis of the disclosure of the
Alperovich reference, it is our opinion that, although we found no error in the
Examiner’s proposed combination of Alperovich and Lehto as discussed supra, the
Lehto reference is not necessary for a proper rejection of at least claim 1 since all
of the claimed elements are in fact present in the disclosure of Alperovich. A
disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness." Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). See also In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571
(CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA
1974).
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 6, 12, and 14 based on the combination of Alperovich and Lehto, we do not
sustain this rejection. We note that, while we found Appellants’ arguments to be
unpersuasive with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, and
15-18 discussed above, we reach the opposite conclusion with respect to the
rejection of claims 6, 12, and 14. Each of these claims relates to
“teleconferencing” in which the embedded value-added field in the SMS message
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007