Appeal No. 96-2121
Application 08/252,984
and for searching a database of preassigned direct inward dial
numbers to ascertain the subscriber’s telephone number or other
personal information. We cannot simply assume that they do.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 18-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kahn, Billinger, and Srinivasan.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 18-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and specifically claim that subject matter which the
appellant regards as his invention, is reversed.
The rejection of claims 18 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
as being anticipated by the IDT machine disclosed in the Business
Week articles is reversed.2
The rejection of claims 18-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the IDT machine disclosed in the Business Week
articles is reversed.
The rejection of claims 18-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kahn, Billinger, and Srinivasan is reversed.
It should be noted, however, that this rejection should be stated as2
being under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), not § 102(a).
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007