Appeal No. 95-3681
Application 07/956,705
in column 1, lines 10-29. Furthermore, Treat teaches in column
1, line 30 through column 2, lines 56, that it is the objective
of the Treat invention to improve upon these prior art devices to
provide a telephone system apparatus that monitors, meters and
selects the low-cost carrier and then automatically dials the
long distance call. Therefore, in view of these specific reasons
of modifying Mincone as taught by Treat, we find that it would
have been obvious to those skilled in the art having the
teachings of Treat before them to provide a method of auto-
matically selecting a telecommunication carrier as recited
in Appellants’ claim 17.
On page 13 of the brief, Appellants argue that their
invention isolates the telephone from the user’s telephone
company, while maintaining a dial tone. However, we note that
this limitation is not recited in Appellants’ claim 17.
Therefore, the Examiner is not required to provide such a
showing.
On page 13 of the brief, Appellants argue with respect
to claim 16 that their invention detects incoming calls, so that
the dialing procedure can be interrupted. We note that claim 16
recites a means for detecting an incoming call, wherein a dialed
telephone number can be interrupted during operator input dialing
of the number to answer an incoming call. On page 19 of the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007