Appeal No. 1997-3060
Application No. 08/181,833
When the “branch telephone exchange system” in Bendixen
receives a properly coded signal at the first input/outport
port (left side of Figure 3), and that code is indicative of a
desired telephone number, the proper connection is made
between the first port and any one of the desired second
input/output ports, at local units 1...N. It would also be
reasonable to assume that calls can flow in the opposite
direction, i.e. from second ports, local units, to the first
input/output port.
With regard to the claimed “plural buildings,” while not
expressly shown by Bendixen, one might make the argument that
each local unit may be installed in a different building and
that doing so would have been within the skill of the artisan.
Similarly, we might agree with the examiner that the claimed
“signal conveying means including a pair of signal conductors
as well as a wireless signal transmission path” is well known.
In fact, appellant does not appear to deny this (see page 4 of
the principal brief).
However, even viewing the above interpretation in the
best light from the examiner’s viewpoint, Bendixen still
appears to lack a disclosure or suggestion of critical claim
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007