Appeal No. 1997-4348 Page 3
Application No. 08/088,708
(filed Mar. 5, 1992)
Roger Berman et al. (Berman) “Perspectives on the AIN
Architecture”, IEEE Communications Magazine,(2-1992) p.27-32.
Claims 1, 3 through 12, 14 through 16, 18 through 20, 22
through 25 and 27 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites Emery and
Brennan with regard to claims 1, 3 through 6, 12, 14, 15, 20,
22 through 25, 27 and 28, adding to this combination, in a new
ground of rejection entered in the principal answer, Berman
with regard to claims 7 through 11, 16, 18, 19, 29 and 30.
Reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
For purposes of this appeal, appellants group the claims
as follows:
Group I: Claims 1, 3 through 6, 12, 14 and 15, directed to
system and method claims which employ AIN technology with a
Service Switching Point (SSP) and Service Control Point (SCP),
the SSP being provisioned with Automatic Call Distribution
(ACD).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007