Appeal No. 95-3681
Application 07/956,705
Appellants’ filing. The Examiner’s argument directed to the
task of gathering and dissemination is not persuasive because
Appellants’ claim 5 is not limited to any structure for gathering
or disseminating. The Appellants’ claim is directed to a memory2
system for updating, storing and deleting information in a
memory. In view of the scope of Appellants’ claim 5, we find
that one of ordinary skill in art would have been able to provide
a updating means for updating, storing and deleting information
in a memory at the time of Appellants’ filing.
Similarly, we note that Appellants’ claim 9 recites
“wherein said digit capture buffer board monitors when the
telephone handset is functionally off the hook or disconnected
from the dialing means.” The Examiner argues that Appellants’3
disclosure is inadequate because the off-hook detection is shown
to be a separate element from the dial capture buffer board.
However, we note that Appellants are free to set claim elements
that include many of Appellants’ disclosed elements.
Finally, the Examiner argues that claims 36 through 38
recited hardware that is not shown in the drawing or the dis-
2The specification does not provide significantly more
structure than the claim. (Page 11)
3As a side issue, we note that “the telephone handset” does
not appear to have a proper antecedent basis.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007