Appeal No. 1998-0644
Application 08/637,588
added [column 28, line 64 to column 29, line 30]. Based upon
the examiner’s broad interpretation of the claims, Barnes
teaches that the signal requesting that an instrument be added
acts as a request to maintain the original call or to place
the original call on “hold” within the broad meaning of that
term.
Although appellants argue that Barnes does not teach
the step of interpreting a new call signal as a request to
place the active call on hold, they never address the
examiner’s position that maintaining a call connection between
the original parties broadly meets the language of placing a
call on hold. We agree with the examiner that if his broadest
interpretation of the claim is acceptable, then the scope of
claim 22 is met by the request to add an additional instrument
as disclosed by Barnes. We find merit in the examiner’s claim
interpretation which has essentially gone unchallenged by
appellants. Therefore, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
With respect to claim 23, appellants argue that they
cannot find any teaching in Barnes for a call reference value
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007