Appeal No. 1998-1393 Page 10
Application No. 08/498,306
references are read not in isolation but for what they fairly
teach in combination with the prior art as a whole. Id. at
1097, 231 USPQ at 380.
Here, the rejection is based on the combination of
Hasegawa, Patsiokas, and Fujioka. The appellant admits that
Hasegawa “describes a cordless telephone system ....” (Appeal
Br. at 3.) As is conventional, the system of the reference
includes a base unit 1 and a handset unit 4. Fig. 1. The
appellant further admits that Hasegawa’s system “includes an
answering system for automatically answering an incoming call
from another terminal through a telephone line.” (Appeal Br.
at 3.) Moreover a, call monitoring feature of the reference
allows a user at a handset unit to listen to a message
received over telephone line 2 as it is being recorded by an
automatic recording circuit 14 within the base unit. Col. 6,
ll. 33-36, 62-66.
Patsiokas teaches a caller-ID feature that, the appellant
admits, “provides called subscribers with the identity of
calling subscribers.” (Appeal Br. at 4.) When a caller 106
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007