Appeall No. 1998-1398 Page 22
Application No. 08/400,637
that it operates without manual intervention once the
selection is made.
Because the incoming call is assigned to a cellular or
cordless connection without manual intervention once a user's
selectable preference is made, we are persuaded that the
Gillig references teach the limitation of “automatically
assigning a route for an incoming call ....” Therefore, we
affirm the rejection of claims 31-36 as anticipated by Gillig
‘230, Gillig ‘042, Gillig ‘558, Gillig ‘674, and Gillig ‘560.
We proceed to the obviousness rejection.
V. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 27-29
We begin by noting the following principles from In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007