Appeal No. 97-4150
Application No. 08/186,820
Claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20 and
24 through 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Arbabzadah.
Claims 1 through 5, 7, 9 through 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20 and
24 through 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the TCI publication.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections.
In the indefiniteness rejection, the examiner states
(Answer, page 6) that:
Claim 42 is confusing because it is unclear under
what condition(s) would the means prevent the apparatus
from transmitting at least a portion of the sequence.
It appears that the means will always and
unconditionally prevent the apparatus from transmitting
at least a portion of any dialing sequence.
Claim 42 depends from claims 2 and 40. Claim 2 has “means for
evaluating said third plurality of dialing signals in a location
in said dialing sequence used for international dialing by
determining if said third plurality of dialing signals are used
to accomplish international dialing,” and “means for transmitting
said dialing sequence to said communications pathway if said
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007