Appeal No. 95-1292
Application 07/911,471
L Since we sustain the rejection of claims 17-21 under
section 103 in view of Takabayashi and Ueno, it follows that
we would also sustain the rejection of claims 17, 19, and 21
under section 103 in view of Takabayashi, Ueno, and
Krisbergh. Krisbergh does not detract from the teachings
and suggestions of Takabayashi and Ueno. Instead, Krisbergh
offers a second example of a television being used as a
Caller ID display device.
M Claims 4 and 11, and their dependent claims 6, 7, 13,
and 14, present a different problem. These claims require
structures or acts to implement a temporary hold function.
We agree with the examiner that the hold function is well
known in telephony. Ueno, however, uses a different
approach to implement Call Waiting/Caller ID. He uses two
parallel interfaces: one for the original call and one for
the third-party call. Takabayashi does not cure the
deficiency. Certainly a hold function would be expedient in
this context, but the cited references do not suggest this
expedient. Absent a motivation, expressed or implied, from
the references, we cannot modify the references as the
examiner proposes without using hindsight. Thus, we cannot
sustain this rejection of these claims.
- 12 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007