Appeal 2007-0374
Application 09/891,167
responded to at the time the alarm message was originated." (Col. 17, ll. 7-
11.)
In summary, Lemelson checks for responses to a paging message to
ensure that emergency assistance/response personnel answer a request for
assistance. Because Singh does not mention transmitting a request for
assistance upon encountering dangerous or emergency conditions, however,
we are unpersuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field would
have been prompted to combine Lemelson's checking of responses with
Singh's message system. Furthermore, the Examiner has presented no
evidence to support his allegation that checking for responses to messages
would have "improv[ed] the probability of forwarding messages to the
correct location of the user as determining the location of the response to
messages would provide the current location of the user," (Answer 11), or
"would further increase the likelihood that messages will be forwarded to
where the client currently is located." (Id.)
V. ORDER
For the aforementioned reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-
18. The "Appellants . . . request that the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences . . . direct the Examiner to pass the case to issue." (Reply Br.
13.) "Withdrawal of the rejections is [also] . . . requested." (Id.) In an ex
parte appeal, however, the Board "is basically a board of review C we
review . . . rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62
USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (B.P.A.I. 2001). We lack authority to direct an
examiner to withdraw an Office action or to issue a Notice of Allowance.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013