Appeal No. 95-1292
Application 07/911,471
N Claims 5 and 12, which depend from claims 4 and 11,
respectively, stand rejected in view of Takabayashi, Ueno,
and Griffith. Griffith does not cure the lack of a hold
function. Thus, we cannot sustain this rejection of these
claims either.
O The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18, and 20
in view of Krisbergh and Ueno essentially parallels the
previous rejection in view of Takabayashi and Ueno.
Although Krisbergh is principally concerned with other
things, it does unambiguously teach the use of a television
to identify the telephone number of incoming calls. In this
respect, it parallels the teaching of Takabayashi. Thus, an
artisan seeking to implement a low-cost version of Ueno's
Caller ID/Call Waiting system would have been inspired to
use existing television equipment as an inexpensive way to
implement the Caller ID aspect of the system.
P Once again, Ueno teaches the basic concept of a Caller
ID/Call Waiting system. Krisbergh is only used to show a
relatively low-cost implementation of a Caller ID system
using an existing television. The fact that neither
reference anticipates the claimed invention does not detract
from the relevance of their teachings in combination. As
- 13 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007