Appeal No. 97-2762
Application No. 08/309,845
flash means" of claims 35, 36 and 38, and the "call-waiting
means" of claims 40, 41, 44 and 58 through 61, for example, we
agree with the examiner (Answer, page 10) that:
However, the call waiting feature claimed by the
appellant is used by an ordinary landline telephone.
With this conventional call waiting feature, it does
not matter whether the user of the landline
telephone is communicating via a land-line link with
another landline telephone or via landline and radio
links for communicating with a radio phone (e.g. a
cellular phone). The call waiting feature of the
landline telephone will still operate the same in
either situation. For example, if the user is
communicating on his landline telephone with another
landline telephone and the user receives a "call
waiting tone" indicative of a call being received
from a cellular phone caller calling the user, the
user need only actuate the "hook-flash" button on
his landline phone to alternatingly couple his phone
to either the landline phone or the cellular phone.
This would then couple the user’s phone to either
the landline network servicing the other landline
phone or the radio network servicing the cellular
phone.
Appellants have not presented an argument to rebut the
examiner’s reasoning concerning the "hook-flash means" and the
"call-waiting means."
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 15 and 16) the non-
obviousness of a "plurality" of land-line, telephonic
communications-devices connected to a portion of the interior,
premises-located telephone wiring (claim 39). We are of the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007