Appeal No. 1998-0644
Application 08/637,588
With respect to claim 24, appellants’ only argument is
that Barnes does not teach a “single signal transmitted from a
mobile station to a network requesting the network to setup a
new call, which signal does not include a request to put the
active call on hold, in response to which the network does
place the active call on hold” [brief, pages 7-8]. In view of
the examiner’s broad interpretation of placing a call on hold
and our discussion above with respect to claim 22, we agree
with the examiner that the request to add an additional
instrument in Barnes has the effect of also placing the active
call on hold without a separate request to do so. Since
appellants’ argument is not persuasive of error in the
rejection of claim 24, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. Since claim 25 has the same recitation as claim 23, we
also sustain the rejection of claim 25 for the reasons
discussed above.
With respect to claim 26, appellants argue that “there
is absolutely no disclosure in Pugh et al of receiving a
request for transmitting DTMF tones and in response thereto
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007