Appeal No. 1998-1950
Application No. 08/584,517
database,” rather than distributing the tables among the switches as shown in Frey’s
Figure 1.
Appellants also argue, as set forth on page 12 of the Brief, that claim 18
distinguishes over the reference because Frey, when determining an alternate termination,
fails to take into account the condition or conditions encountered in attempting to connect a
call to a first termination. Frey is alleged to teach that, in contrast, alternate terminations
are predefined.
The argument fails to account for at least the following teaching in Frey. ”The
specific reason for the release may be used to modify the redirection. For example, if the
redirection is to the same destination via another egress switch, no redirection is
performed if the reason is that the called subscriber is busy. “ Id. at column 5, lines 15-19.
Performing “no redirection” if “the called subscriber is busy” meets the broad terms of
claim 18: “(d) using information relating to why said call was not successfully completed at
said first termination and said condition encountered to select from at least one set of
overflow statements providing instructions for overflow routing said second termination at
said network database.”
Moreover, as described at column 4, lines 51 et seq. of Frey, the release message
60 (Fig. 1), which is sent to ingress switch 1, contains a reason 62 for the release. The
reason for release is generated by egress switch 2 from the reason 59 for the call rejection
by PBX 30. Frey thus contains the teaching of supplying the telecommunications network
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007