Appeal No. 1998-1393 Page 9
Application No. 08/498,306
Second, the appellant summarizes the remainder of his
arguments as follows.
There is ... no disclosure or suggestion provided in
any of these cited references, of a voice message
being stored in memory in a base unit of a cordless
telephone and then being transmitted to a handset
unit, also in the cordless telephone, where the
voice message is generated in a loudspeaker in the
handset unit. (Appeal Br. at 5.)
The examiner replies, “Since the cited references disclose
that it is known in the art to forward caller identification
information (whether visual or audible), the combination of
Hasegawa, Fujioka, and Patsiokas renders the present invention
obvious ....” (Examiner’s Answer at 8-9.) We agree with the
examiner.
The appellant errs in considering the references
individually. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981)). In determining obviousness, furthermore,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007