Appeal No. 1999-0091
Application No. 08/762,052
claims 1 and 8." Appellant makes a similar argument in the Reply
Brief at pages 2-3. However, representative claim 1 does not
preclude the rider's answering the telephone. The distinctive
telephone ring sound recited in the claim indicates the source of
the telephone call, thus alerting the user that the vehicle is
calling, but does not prevent the user from answering the phone
and listening to a voice message. Further, although Ross
suggests that the user must answer the phone, as the user would
otherwise have no other way of knowing the source of the
telephone call, a special ringing sound, as suggested by Oprea,
would allow the user to determine the source of the call without
answering the phone. Thus, there would be incentive to combine
Ross with Oprea, contrary to appellant's assertion (Reply Brief,
page 3).
Appellant further states (Brief, page 5) that Ross discloses
that the call is placed from the vehicle, which limits the number
of calls that can be initiated. However, claim 1 includes no
limitations regarding location from which the call is placed.
In addition, appellant argues (Brief, pages 5-6 and 6-7)
that Oprea fails to disclose using different ringing frequencies
or cadences to notify a user of a pending arrival of a vehicle in
an advanced notification system. Appellant also states (Brief,
page 7) that while Oprea suggests numerous applications for
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007