Appeal No. 96-2121
Application 08/252,984
of evidence presented by the examiner in his Exhibit E1. See,
e.g., In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1565, 31 USPQ2d 1817, 1821
(Fed. Cir. 1994).
Nonetheless, the IDT machine still must meet each and every
feature of the invention claimed in claims 18 and 23 to support
an anticipation rejection of those claims. In our view, the
examiner has not established prima facie anticipation.
Each of claims 18 and 23 requires that an incoming direct
inward dial telephone number be received from a telephone
exchange as part of an incoming call attempt from the subscriber
telephone station, and that this received direct inward dial
number be compared with preassigned direct inward dial telephone
numbers stored in a database and associated with corresponding
subscribers. When a match is found, a stored telephone number
for that subscriber is used to call the subscriber. The examiner
has not pointed to anything which indicates that this is how the
IDT machine operates. It is not at all clear and it has not been
established that the IDT machine makes use of incoming direct
inward dial numbers generated by the telephone network or
exchange, much less makes use of such in the same manner as is
required by the appellant’s claims.
There are many ways to ascertain the number of the calling
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007