Appeal No. 1998-1950
Application No. 08/584,517
with the reason for a call rejection, and the teaching that the information is to be used for
determining which termination is next to be attempted. The teachings are broader than the
exemplary “no redirection” if “the called subscriber is busy.” Since the teachings are
viewed in light of Frey’s disclosure that a central network database may be used, we find
that all the argued limitations of claim 18 are met by the reference.
2
Appellants also submit arguments in support of claim 26. “[T]he components set
forth with respect to each of the originating switch, terminating switch and network
database are not disclosed in Frey.” (Brief, page 12.) Appellants add more words to this
argument in the Reply Brief, at page 5. However, the examiner has stated the position
(Answer, page 4) that the components as recited in claim 26 are shown in Figure 1 of
Frey, in view of the functions performed by the components. We agree that, in view of the
written description of Frey and the inferences the artisan would be expected to draw
therefrom, the various components set forth in claim 26 are contained in Frey’s Figure 1.
For example, the originating switch (ingress switch 1) must have an indicator of a
first termination of a call -- because, as disclosed, ingress switch 1 must possess the
information regarding which particular termination (such as PBX 30) is preferred for a
particular call. See Frey, column 4, lines 29-38. Ingress switch 1 must also have a call
router for selecting the terminating switch (egress switch 2) which is coupled to the
We acknowledge that, as appellants urge in the Reply Brief, the arguments in the Brief are2
directed to independent claim 26, rather than dependent claim 28.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007