Appeal No. 1998-1950
Application No. 08/584,517
indicated first termination (PBX 30) and routing the call to the selected terminating switch.
See id. at lines 39-47. The functions performed by the “indicator” and the “call router” are
at least inherent in the operation of ingress switch 1, as the reference would be understood
by one skilled in the art.
Frey does not specify what portion of the disclosed functions may be performed by
hardware and what portion may be performed by software in combination with hardware,
but neither does appellants’ claim 26. We also note that the reference need not use the
same terminology -- for example, need not use the term “call router” -- to meet the
substantive requirements of the claim. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d
1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is not an "ipsissimis
verbis" test).
Frey clearly discloses an “originating switch” (ingress switch 1), a “terminating
switch” (egress switch 2), and, in view of the previously-identified teaching in column 7, a
“network database.” Appellants refer to limitations of claim 26 (Reply Brief, page 5), but
do not explain how any particular “sub-component” may represent something that is not
disclosed or suggested by Frey. As such, the arguments amount to no more than
unsupported allegation that the claim distinguishes over Frey. Appellants have not pointed
out the “specific limitations” of claim 26 which are thought to distinguish over Frey. See 37
C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(8)(iv) (“the argument shall specify the errors in the rejection and, if
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007