Appeal No. 95-2050
Application 07/888,098
Claims 1 and 15
Claims 1 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Bush.
The examiner finds that Bush discloses all of the
recited steps, albeit in a communication network different
than the communication network recited in the claim’s
preamble. According to the examiner, it would have been
obvious to use Bush’s method in the modern communication
network recited in the preamble.
Appellants argue that there are additional
differences, and that none of the differences are suggested by
Bush.
We agree with the examiner.
As to the argued additional differences, we agree
with the examiner that Bush suggests or implies a method for
“simultaneously redirecting a plurality of call paths” because
it was common knowledge that a given 800 number is likely to
have more than one incoming call path. Moreover, this is
implied by Bush’s reference to Private Branch Exchanges at the
alternate location. Column 2, lines 4-8. Each 800 number in
Bush may constitute the recited “pre-set group.” All of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007