Appeal No. 1997-0402
Application 07/843,685
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6. With respect to
Appellants’ complaint that Miska’s pager 114 gives an alert
that is not claimed, the Examiner is correct that the
additional alert is irrelevant.
We note further that the Examiner has designated
Miska’s cell phone 102 as the means for placing a second call,
and at the same time designated Miska’s 102 as the portable
device supplying the alert (answer-pages 6 and 7).
Appellants’ claims, couched in “mean for” language, and their
disclosure, clearly call for these elements to be separate and
different, note Figure 1, elements 125 and 103.
Additionally we note, the claimed “means responsive
to reception of said actuation signal for placing a second
telephone call” is disclosed as an automatic means. We do not
agree with the Examiner that In re Venner makes converting any
manual operation to an automatic operation routine in the art.
There must be some evidence to show the simplicity of
converting a particular operation. The mere allegation that
it can be done is not convincing.
The Federal Circuit states that "[the mere fact that
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007