Appeall No. 1998-1398 Page 19
Application No. 08/400,637
136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991,
217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Here, the appellants state, “[c]laims 31-36 stand or fall
together.” (Appeal Br. at 6.) Therefore, we consider these
claims to stand or fall as a group and select claim 31 to
represent the group. With this representation in mind, we
consider the appellants’ argument.
The appellants argue, “the preferred embodiment of the
priority document does not teach or suggest ‘automatically3
assigning a route for an incoming call, before the incoming
call is generated...’ ....” (Appeal Br. at 13.) The examiner
replies by referencing the description of Figure 6, which is
common to the Gillig references. (Examiner's Answer at 24-
26.)
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given
their broadest reasonable interpretations. Moreover,
3The appellants call Gillig ‘230 the “priority document
....” (Appeal Br. at 13.)
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007