Appeal No. 1997-4348 Page 6
Application No. 08/088,708
do appellants, that the definition in Newton is not in
alternative form but, rather, in conjunctive form, using the
conjunctive “And” to separate the three sorts of information in
ACD.
The examiner counters that the instant specification only
discloses ACD as performing the call routing functions and
parking the caller in a queue and, therefore, Brennan shows an
equivalent function to the claimed ACD. However, the examiner
has chosen the definition of ACD by pointing to a dictionary
and appellants have chosen to use the term ACD in its ordinary
and accustomed meaning [reply brief-page 3], meaning that
dictionary definition. That definition requires more than the
mere routing and queue function and we interpret the term ACD,
as appellants would have us interpret it, to include each and
every function set forth in the definition of that term in
Newton’s Telecom Dictionary. Since Brennan clearly does not
disclose ACD as defined in Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, and
independent claims 1 and 12 require ACD, we will not sustain
the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 6, 12, 14 and 15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. For similar reasons, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 20, 22 through 25, 27 and 28 under 35
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007