Appeal No. 96-2121
Application 08/252,984
station to call back a subscriber. For instance, the caller
identification information provided by the telephone network or
exchange may be used. Alternatively, there may be a dedicated
line per subscriber, and if the line rings the caller is
simultaneously identified. According to the New York Times
article referenced on page 4 of the appellant’s specification
(copy attached), the IDT machine operates by having customers buy
access to two telephone lines and by using a black box containing
an automatic dialer and a device that makes conference calls
possible. The IDT machine may have employed dedicated lines for
each customer, like the acknowledged prior art described on pages
3-4 of the appellant’s specification. Note that even the
examiner has found, on page 7 of the answer, that the IDT machine
provides each subscriber with a unique, dedicated input line. If
that is the case, the IDT machine would have no need to receive
and process an incoming direct input dial number provided by the
telephone exchange.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 18 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by
the IDT machine.
The obviousness
rejection over the IDT machine
The examiner has failed to demonstrate that the IDT machine
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007