Appeal No. 95-3913
Application 07/910,219
respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we agree
with the Examiner that claims 1, 7 and 9 are properly rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of
these claims but we will reverse the rejection of the remaining
claims on appeal for the reasons set forth infra.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
On page 7 of the brief, Appellants argue that Coviello fails
to disclose a press-talk trunk coupled to receive press-talk
signals when a press-talk signal from any one of the terminals is
active as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. The Examiner shows
that Coviello teaches the press-talk trunk as the combination of
stations circuits (SC1-SCN) shown in Figures 1 and 9. On pages 2
and 3 of the reply brief, Appellants argue that Appellants' claim
October 11, 1996. Because the Examiner states in the letter that it is a
supplement to the answer, we will treat the letter as a supplemental
Examiner's answer and refer to the letter as simply the supplemental answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007