Appeal No. 1998-2191
Application No. 08/284,708
5.) However, even if it would have been obvious to “perform the calculation step in the
base unit,” it is unclear how that may speak to the requirements of claim 1. The claim
recites that information is transmitted to the user phone terminal “during said two-way call
set-up period.” Even if the call charge is thought to be a species of “cumulative current
billing period information,” the “information” is not known during the two-way call set-up
period -- before the call takes place.
With respect to instant claim 1, the rejection appears to rely on Ortiz only for teaching
a display system, even though Hattori is recognized as disclosing display unit 450.
“[S]ystems for displaying current billing period information to a user has [sic; have] been
well known in the art.” (Id.) The rejection then refers to column 14, lines 7-17 of Ortiz.
Column 14 of Ortiz refers to an embodiment shown in Figure 6 of the reference. Ortiz
at column 12, line 64 et seq. describes an “autonomous pay telephone arrangement” 11
that may be retrofitted to a “standard” mobile telephone arrangement. Column 13, line 44
through column 14, line 29 reveals that billing rates for phone services, including
“precharges, tariffs, mark-ups and the like as well as accounting information” are stored in
memory 31 by means of computer access port 25, for programming by an external
computer, or by means of hand-set 21 and LED display 17. Information on phone charges
is accumulated until a reset operation is performed. While the system permits pricing of
calls on a real-time basis, it is clear that the information is calculated and maintained at the
user’s location, rather than transmitted from “the provider’s real-time node computer,” as
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007