Appeal No. 1998-2870
Application 08/429,954
products have been developed for use in parallel with a standard
telephone, such as automatic telephone answering machines, card
readers, check verification devices, pre-programmed automatic
dialers, etc. (col. 1, lines 5-12). (Note that while the device
is externally connected in series, figure 1, the circuitry is
electrically connected in parallel to the telephone lines, as is
Appellants' circuitry.) This would have been an additional
suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the
amenities service device of Biggs as a separate external device,
connected between the standard telephone and the external
apparatus. Although Snyder does not state why add-on devices
were developed for use with standard telephones, and while the
reasons are not necessary to the rejection given the teaching in
Snyder of doing what Appellants have done, we agree with the
Examiner's reasoning (EA6) that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have known to use an add-on device to avoid the need and
expense of replacing existing standard telephones.
Appellants argue that the references are not combinable
because there is no suggestion of the desirability of the
combination (Br9-10). As discussed in the preceding paragraph,
we find at least two suggestions in Snyder to modify the
amenities service device in Biggs to be separate: (1) the fact
that both Biggs and Snyder are directed to amenities services
devices and that Snyder teaches that the amenities service device
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007