Appeal No. 2002-2000
Application No. 08/933,911
obvious in view of the straight forward teachings of Lee in
combination with Reininghaus.
On the other hand, the recitation in dependents claims 3 and 6
requires the entering of the telephone number of the called mobile
station followed by the identifier character. There is no teaching
or suggestion explicit as to such appending function in Lee and
Reininghaus. The examiner’s view expressed at the bottom of page 4
of the final rejection that the examiner considers the order of
entry to be obvious because it is not critical to the invention and
that it would have been obvious in order to provide the user
convenience of entering the numbers, is not, in our view, based on
substantial evidence before us. The examiner, however, is free to
provide additional evidence of obviousness by the use of pertinent
teachings or suggestions from additional prior art to meet the
features of these dependent claims.
Lastly, we turn to the futures of independent claims 7 and its
dependent claim 8. Claim 7 requires, in addition to the use of the
paging function when the mobile station is correctly identifiable
within the new serving system, when it is not correctly
identifiable within the new serving system, performing completing
the call using conventional calling completion techniques or
sending a message to the mobile station indicating the telephone
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007