Appeal No. 1997-2700
Application 08/307,249
routing, we find the Examiner’s rationale with regard to the
obviousness of providing routing of calls to an operator to be
reasonable so as to establish a prima facie case. In
considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to
take into account not only specific teachings of the reference
but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Since the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been
overcome by any persuasive arguments by Appellant, the 35
U.S.C. § 103 rejection of dependent claims 4-6, as well as
dependent claims 14-16, 21, and 22 not separately argued by
Appellant, is sustained.
Lastly, we consider the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of dependent claims 7, 17, and 23, grouped and
argued together by Appellant, as unpatentable over Hunt in
view of Johnson. The Examiner, as the basis for the
obviousness rejection of these claims, proposes to modify the
risk factor teachings of Hunt by adding additional risk
factors such as those taught by Johnson, to increase the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007