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
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007