Appeal No. 95-2050
Application 07/888,098
Thus, the rejection of claims 3 and 17 will be
sustained.
Claims 4 and 18
Claims 4 and 18 depend from claims 3 and 17
respectively and stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bush. These claims additionally recite that
the “redirection information indicates a plurality of
alternative destinations for at least one of said telephone
numbers.” We agree with the examiner that this is taught by
Bush. Column 2, lines 9-16.
Thus, the rejection of claims 4 and 18 will be
sustained.
Claims 5, 6, 19, and 20
Claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 additionally recite that the
redirection information designates either an apportionment
percentage or a time schedule for alternative destinations.
The examiner states that these are matters of design choice.
Appellants argue that “design choice” begs the question of
obviousness and is an improper basis for rejecting these
claims.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007