Appeal No. 97-4150
Application No. 08/186,820
(column 3, lines 1 through 12). According to the examiner
(Answer, page 11):
Arbabzadah et al teaches the general scheme of
blocking certain types of calls but does not
specifically teach blocking international calls.
However, a) it is well known in the art (and
acknowledged by Appellant) that fraudulent
international calls cost the industry millions of
dollars every year, cause fraud-related crimes and
allow “bad guys” to monopolize pay phones and b) it is
well known that international calls can be made by
using access codes such as 10-XXX-01.... or
950-1XXX1.... (or the like). The above points (a & b)
represent notoriously well-known FACTS.
Thus, if the owner of the Arbabzadah et al public
telephone desires to prevent the users from making
international calls, this can obviously be achieved by
simply programming the sequence 10-XXX-01 (or the like)
in the table as a prohibited sequence. Programming a
sequence such as 10-XXX-01 or the like is within the
teachings of Arbabzadah et al.
We agree with the examiner that the skilled artisan armed with
the teachings of Arbabzadah would have known to place
international telephone numbers in the EEPROM table 113. On the
other hand, we agree with the appellant that the skilled artisan
would have had to look to appellant’s disclosure and claimed
invention for a teaching of specifically “‘looking for’ a third
plurality of dialing digits and preventing a telephone call if
the third plurality of dialing digits are international dialing
digits” (Brief, pages 19 through 22). The examiner cannot rely
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007