Appeal No. 1997-4348 Page 7
Application No. 08/088,708
U.S.C. § 103 because independent claims 20 and 25 also require
ACD.
We now turn to the claims of Group II and reach the
opposite result with regard to the rejection of these claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Taking independent claim 7 as exemplary, since all the
claims in the group stand or fall together, this claims calls
for “AIN Release 1" SSP and SCP. Realizing that neither Emery
nor Brennan disclosed such, the examiner cited Berman to show
that the use of AIN Release 1 components was well known,
concluding that it would have been obvious to add AIN Release 1
components and predetermined routing in order to provide
communication mobility. Since the claims in Group II do not
require ACD, the examiner appears to rely on Brennan for the
teaching of routing calls in a predetermined manner while
parking callers on a queue. However, it would appear that
Emery, alone would provide such a suggestion [note the Abstract
of Emery which recites that the “AIN then uses that data to
route the call to the current location”]. In any event, the
only argument presented, in the reply brief, by appellants with
regard to this rejection is that Brennan uses calling line
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007