Ex parte KIM - Page 3




              Appeal No. 1999-2594                                                                                       
              Application No. 08/777,720                                                                                 


                            when said stop key is input by the user from said operational panel                          
                     during said dialing of the corresponding telephone number registered for                            
                     said abbreviated dial number, successively counting each time the user                              
                     input of said stop key from said operational panel, and automatically printing                      
                     a list of registered abbreviated dial numbers with corresponding telephone                          
                     numbers registered in said facsimile system for user dialing information,                           
                     when a count value of the user input of said stop key reaches said                                  
                     predetermined value.                                                                                
                     The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                      
              appealed claims is:                                                                                        
              Fukushima et al. (Fukushima)              5,293,256                    Mar. 08, 1994                       
                     Claims 1-4 and 8-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                      
              over Fukushima.                                                                                            
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                       
              appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's                        
              answer (Paper No. 16, mailed Oct. 27, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of                     
              the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 15, filed Aug. 18, 1998) and reply brief               
              (Paper No. 18, filed Dec. 28, 1998) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.                                
                                                       OPINION                                                           

                     In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to                     
              appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                      





                                                           3                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007