Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
and that this feature is taught by neither Crane nor Hong.
The quoted language is actually contained in parent claim 67,
which we found to be anticipated by Crane as discussed in
section 5.
The prima facie case has not been rebutted. The
rejection of claim 69 is sustained.
12. Claim 7: § 103(a) over Gillig and Bartholomew
Gillig discloses the limitations of claim 7 except for
the "base telephone apparatus connected with at least two
separate telephone lines of a telephone utility company,
thereby to permit making an outgoing telephone call via one of
the two telephone lines while a conversation is being
carried-on via the other one of the two telephone lines." The
Examiner finds that it was "well known in the art to have
multiple line base telephone apparatuses" (EA8) as evidenced
by Bartholomew. We agree that it was well known in the
telephone art to have telephone sets, commonly business
telephone sets such as those used by receptionists, connected
to multiple telephone lines so that the user may switch
between calls. Bartholomew, figure 1, shows a multiline phone
set 13 having N lines 12. Such prior art teachings would have
- 33 -
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007