Appeal No. 95-3681
Application 07/956,705
teaches in column 5, lines 1 through 30, another embodiment of
Treat’s device which is able to predict the cheapest carrier and
to automatically dial the carrier to place the cheapest call.
Furthermore, in column 6, lines 49 and 50, Treat teaches a
telephone call monitoring, metering and selection means having
the capability of selecting the cheapest carrier. In column 6,
line 67, through column 7, line 5, Treat teaches that the
telephone call monitoring, metering and selection means includes
means which automatically dial that carrier to place the cheapest
call. Therefore, we find that Treat does teach the method of
automatically generating a telephone number with the appended
access code for routing to a telephone line as claimed in
Appellants’ claim 17.
On pages 11 and 12, Appellants argue that the Examiner
has not provided a reason for combining Treat with Mincone. It
is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the artisan contained
in such teachings or suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,
995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In addition, the Federal
Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the prior art may be
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007