Appeal No. 96-2121
Application 08/252,984
that the reference "the subscriber remote telephone number" has
no antecedent basis. We disagree. The appellant correctly
points out that the subscriber remote telephone number is the
previously set forth subscriber number and it is inherently or
naturally "remote" because the subscriber is connected through a
telephone exchange. We are construing "remote" according to its
broadest reasonable interetation in the context of this
invention. Note also that only a reasonable degree of precision
and particularity is required. See, e.g., In re Johnson, 558
F.2d 1008, 1016, 194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to both claim 18 and claim 23, the examiner
objects to the appellant’s reciting "connecting to the subscriber
telephone station" as being indefinite. The examiner states that
it is not clear what is being connected to the subscriber
telephone station. We disagree. It is quite clear that in claim
18 it is the claimed system and in claim 23 the performer of the
claimed method that is "connecting to the subscriber telephone
station." In the answer, the examiner indicates that because the
system of claim 18 has many components, the appellant must
specifically recite which one is connecting to the subscriber
telephone station. That is incorrect. The appellant need not
recite the invention in more detail once it is made clear that
the system is connecting to the subscriber telephone station.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007