Appeal No. 1998-1950
Application No. 08/584,517
bridging pages 11 and 12 of the Brief, Frey, “in contrast” to appellants’ invention, requires
that each ingress switch carries in its memory store two sets of tables, 44 and 46, as
shown in Frey’s Figure 1. There is “but one” network database in instant claim 18 “to
which all originating switches would query when they require an alternate termination to
reroute an incoming call.” “Needless to say, the instant invention network database system
is more efficient than that of Frey, insofar as the data or information in the network
database can readily be updated, as compared to each of the ingress switches of the
network having to be individually updated with the requisite information for the Frey
system.” (See Brief, pages 11-12.)
However, this purported difference from Frey is at least suggested by the reference,
and Frey teaches the same advantage that appellants put forth.
While in this specific embodiment, the database supplies only an
initial translation and the subsequent translations are made in the ingress
switch, it is also possible to perform all the translations in the database by
providing a list of alternative destinations to ingress switch 1 at the time of
the first access or to request the alternative destinations in a series of
subsequent queries. The advantage of providing these translations from the
database is that only one database need be updated as customers for
whom redirect capabilities are added or as customers change their
redirection requests.
Frey, column 7, lines 36-46.
Thus, while Frey’s preferred embodiment operates as alleged by appellants, Frey
also provides reasons why the artisan would have been motivated to use “but one network
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007