Appeal No. 1997-4348 Page 4
Application No. 08/088,708
Group II: Claims 7 through 11, 16, 18, 19, 29 and 30,
which employ AIN release 1.
Group III: Claims 20, 22 through 25, 27 and 28, employing
ACD.
The claims within each group stand or fall together.
Turning first to the claims of Group I, these claims all
require, inter alia, the SSP to be provisioned with ACD. The
examiner recognizes that Emery discloses no such ACD
capability. The examiner then relies on Brennan for such a
teaching, relying, specifically, on host node 11 of Brennan for
a teaching of ACD. Clearly, Brennan mentions nothing about
ACD. However, the examiner contends that this “black box” of
Brennan is a “functional equivalent of a ACD switch” [principal
answer-page 5] and concludes that it would have been obvious to
add such a switch to an AIN disclosed by Emery in order to
provide communication mobility.
We note, initially, that Brennan is not directed to an
Advanced Intelligence Network (AIN) as is Emery and the instant
invention so it is suspect whether the artisan would have
sought to combine Emery and Brennan. Moreover, the examiner
contends that Brennan discloses the “functional equivalent” to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007