Appeal No. 95-2050
Application 07/888,098
Claims 2 and 16 depend from claims 1 and 15
respectively and stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bush. Bush’s long distance carrier may be
considered the recited “central office switching system” and
thus renders obvious the claimed subject matter as discussed
above. Moreover, Bush specifically suggests application to a
“central office switching station.” Column 1, lines 14-17.
Thus, the rejection of claims 2 and 16 will be
sustained.
Claims 3 and 17
Claims 3 and 17 depend from claims 1 and 15
respectively and stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bush. These claims additionally recite
“concurrently transmitting redirection information for said
plurality of telephone numbers for storage in said data base.”
We note that “said plurality” lacks antecedent basis and so
provides little if any limitation additional to the
independent claims. Moreover, we agree with the examiner that
impliedly an artisan implementing Bush would transmit
information concurrently.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007