Appeal No. 2006-2890
Application No. 09/842,747
to be a conventional hardwired link and is not so illustrated either in figure 1. The
examiner’s reliance upon the various teachings at columns 7 and 8 buttress the
conclusion of the artisan that access device 190 itself maybe a wireless device.
These conclusions are buttressed by the entire teachings of Stein which relate to
wireless devices and wireless networks per se. Figures 1, 2 and 14 of Stein show
the overall arrangement and the nature of the wireless devices, some of which are
taught at column 6, lines 46 through 49, which appear completely compatible with
the broad teachings in Cloutier.
Thus, the features in each independent claim of a wireless device operating
within a wireless network is clearly taught within the teachings of each/both
references relied upon by the examiner.
At pages 11 and 12 of the answer, the examiner has recognized appellant’s
argument:
that Cloutier in view of Stein does not result in a viably functioning system
because the mailbox content list of Stein is obtained by a wireless device
using pull technology, but the message alert of Cloutier, which the mailbox
content list is proposed to replace, functions according to push technology.
Examiner submits both pull technology and push technology were
well known means, at the time of the present invention, for obtaining remote
information. Contrary to Appellants interpretation of the prior art, Stein
discloses using both pull and push technology to obtain remote information.
As previously discussed, Stein uses push technology so that a mobile device
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007