Ex Parte MANNING et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2001-2270                                                        
          Application 09/235,529                                                      

               We affirm-in-part.                                                     
                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The invention relates to a parallel-connected device for               
          intercepting dialing signals across the tip and ring conductors             
          of a telephone line by switching in a load that attenuates the              
          dialing signals by at least 30 dB.                                          
               Claim 1 is reproduced below.                                           
               1.  A parallel-connected dialing signal detection and                  
               transmission-inhibiting device, comprising                             
                    a detector for identifying dual-tone multifrequency               
               dialing signals across the tip and ring conductors of a                
               telephone link;                                                        
                    a load that connects across the tip and ring conductors           
               to attenuate the dialing signals by at least 30 dB; and                
                    a controller for controlling a call and the connection            
               of the load in response to the identified dialing signals.             

               The examiner relies on the following references:                       
               Gaukel et al. (Gaukel)      5,200,995         April 6, 1993            
               Stevens et al. (Stevens)    5,590,182     December 31, 1996            
          (filed June 22, 1994)                                                       
               Eaton                       5,710,808      January 20, 1998            
          (§ 102(e) date August 11, 1995)                                             
               Claims 1-5 and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)            
          as being unpatentable over Stevens and Eaton.                               
               Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being              
          unpatentable over Stevens, Eaton, and Gaukel.                               
               We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 7) (pages                   
          referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 10)             

                                        - 2 -                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007