Appeal No. 1998-0644
Application 08/637,588
deciding to transmit DTMF tones to equipment associated with
an active call rather than equipment associated with a call on
hold” [brief, page 9]. We agree with appellants.
The examiner has never specifically addressed the
limitations of claim 26. Claim 26 is different from the other
claims in that the method operates when a mobile unit has both
an active call and a call on hold at the same time. The
claimed method requires that DTMF tones be sent to the party
associated with the active call rather than the party
associated with the call on hold. We can find nothing in the
applied references nor anything identified by the examiner
which teaches or suggests this operation. Therefore, the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
In summary, we have sustained the rejections of claims
22-25 based on prior art. We have not sustained the rejection
of claim 26 nor the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph. Therefore, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 22-26 is affirmed-in-part.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007