Appeal No. 95-4636
Application 08/027,868
The obviousness rejections of
claims 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 7, 10 and
14-18 over Butler and Crowdis. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 8, 9 and 19 over Butler and Aoki. We do
not sustain the rejection of claims 11-13 over Butler and
Hilligoss. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 20 over
Butler and Suzawa.
Butler is the base or primary reference for all of the
prior art type grounds of rejections. As will be discussed
below, the manner in which the examiner has applied the
teachings of Butler to the claimed invention entailed several
deficiencies.
The examiner correctly found that Butler discloses a
microprocessor, an EPROM, a RAM, an address bus, a data bus, a
UART and a modem. See Butler's Figure 1, components 10, 26
and 28. Butler does not disclose a circuit generating a
caller number delivery signal which is received by the modem.
However, Crowdis does, and the examiner is correct in
concluding that it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the art, in light of Crowdis, to have such a
caller number delivery circuit in the system of Butler. In
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007