Appeal No. 96-2121
Application 08/252,984
reasonably would have suggested making use of the incoming direct
inward dial number provided by a telephone network or exchange to
identify the calling subscriber and to search for a corresponding
telephone number for the subscriber. There exists no reasonable
explanation as to why in light of the IDT machine the features of
the appellant’s claimed invention relating to use of the incoming
direct inward dial number would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the art. The examiner presented no evidence to
support a conclusion that the IDT machine would have reasonably
suggested making use of the direct inward dial number provided by
the telephone network or exchange to identify the calling
subscriber and to ascertain the subscriber’s number by searching
a database of preassigned direct inward dial numbers.
Additionally, the examiner has found (answer at 7) that the
IDT machine operates by using unique dedicated lines for each
subscriber. That is how the prior art as acknowledged by the
appellant in the specification operates. It has not been
explained how that would have reasonably suggested the
appellant’s claimed invention.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 18-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the IDT machine.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007