Ex parte JORDAN - Page 12

          Appeal No. 1997-2700                                                        
          Application 08/307,249                                                      

          versatility and security of Hunt’s call verification system.                
               Appellant’s arguments in response (Reply Brief, pages 7                
          and 8) do not assert Johnson’s lack of disclosure of the                    
          particular claimed risk factors but, rather, focus on the                   
          contention that Johnson’s risk factors are directed solely to               
          the historical pattern of usage of a particular calling card                
          subscriber.  Appellant contrasts this teaching with the                     
          instant invention which is concerned with all callers, not a                
          specific individual making a call.                                          

               In our view, however, it is apparent from the Examiner’s               
          line of reasoning that Johnson was cited for the limited                    
          purpose of supplying a teaching of specific criteria which                  
          could be added to improve the call verification risk factor                 
          teachings of Hunt.  The Johnson reference was used by the                   
          Examiner in combination with Hunt to establish the basis for                
          the obviousness rejection.    One cannot show nonobviousness                
          by attacking references individually where the rejections are               
          based on combinations of references.  In re Keller, 642 F.2d                


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007