Appeal No. 95-3681
Application 07/956,705
closure. However, Appellants recite well-known hardware in
claims 36 through 38. Claim 36 recites that the processing means
resides on an integrated circuit chip. Claim 37 recites that the
processing means resides on a plug-in printed circuit board.
Claim 38 recites that the processing means resides in telephone
set containing displays and LEDs in addition to the standard
user interfaces. We find that one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of Appellants’ filing would have been able to make
and use these hardware elements without more than routine
experimentation. Therefore, we fail to find that the Examiner
has shown any support for a reasonable basis for questioning the
sufficiency of the disclosure.
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 20, 22 through 33 and
35 through 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mincone and Treat. Claims 4, 21 and 34 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Mincone, Treat and Riskin.
At the outset, we note that Appellants state on page 6
of the brief that the claims should not be grouped together. On
pages 7 through 14 of the brief, we note that Appellants argue
claims 1 through 3, 5 through 20, 22 through 33 and 35 through
39 as a group with the exception of claim 16 which is argued
separately. We note that Appellants do point out what claim 5
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007