Appeal No. 95-0057
Application 07/775,114
responds that any card which is regularly used by a subscriber is
maintained by that subscriber so that the card is a “maintenance
card” [answer, page 23]. The examiner also defines system
function as any function to do with the telephone such as dialing
a number. Appellants respond that the examiner’s definitions are
improper because they are inconsistent with the definitions
presented in their specification [reply brief, page 12]. We
agree.
It is clear from the specification that a maintenance
card is not a card which is maintained by a subscriber but is a
card which maintains the phone system. Thus, the examiner has
interpreted language of claim 5 in a manner which is clearly
inconsistent with the disclosed invention. Such interpretation
is improper. Since the examiner has failed to address the
question of why it would have been obvious to use a maintenance
card as recited in claim 5, we do not sustain any of the
alternative rejections of claim 5 as presented by the examiner.
II. The rejection of claims 6-11 based
upon D’Avello in view of Fuwa.
With respect to claim 6, appellants argue that there is
no basis for combining the teachings of D’Avello with Fuwa. We
considered this argument with respect to the rejection of claim
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007