Appeal No. 97-4150
Application No. 08/186,820
evaluated third plurality of dialing signals are determined to
not be predetermined signals which are used to accomplish
international dialing irrespective of said second plurality of
dialing signals.” In claim 40, the “means for evaluating said
third plurality of dialing signals” identifies the first
plurality of dialing signals and the second plurality of dialing
signals in order to identify the third plurality of dialing
signals. Claim 42 further comprises “means for preventing said
telecommunications apparatus from transmitting at least a portion
of said dialing sequence to said communications pathway.” None
of the “means” in claims 2, 40 or 42 “will always and
unconditionally prevent the apparatus from transmitting at least
a portion of any dialing sequence” (Answer, page 6). If the
dialing sequence in claim 2 is “not” for international dialing,
then the telecommunications apparatus will transmit the dialing
sequence to the communications pathway. On the other hand, if
the dialing sequence is for international dialing, then the
“means” in claim 42 will certainly stop the transmission of the
dialing sequence to the communications pathway. The
indefiniteness rejection is reversed because there is nothing
indefinite about claim 42.
Bimonte discloses a telephone interexchange call routing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007