Appeal No. 1998-2870
Application 08/429,954
transmit signals as claimed and, so, Snyder also teaches that the
telephone can transmit signals to an external apparatus. This
answers Appellants' arguments in the brief.
Appellants argue (RBr10) that the Examiner has failed to
address the enabling of the claimed device by "activating an
externally connected response device." The amenities service
devices of Biggs and Snyder are activated by lifting the
telephone receiver; i.e., both Biggs and Snyder are line powered
when the telephone receiver is lifted. Thus, in making the
amenities service device in Biggs as a separate, externally
connected device in view of Snyder, it would have been obvious to
use the method of enabling the device taught by both references.
In fact, no other method of enabling the device is suggested.
For these reasons, the rejection of claim 26 is sustained.
Claim 27 recites that all the signals of claim 26 are DTMF
signals. Appellants' arguments assert that Biggs does not show
an external response device and cannot teach or suggest a
telephone accessory communications device permitting the response
device (telephone) to transmit signals to an external apparatus.
We conclude that it would have been obvious in view of Snyder to
make the amenities service device of Biggs as a separate external
device, connected between the standard telephone (response
device) and the external apparatus; see the discussion of
claim 26. The telephone in Biggs generates DTMF signals and the
- 15 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007