Appeal No. 1999-0091
Application No. 08/762,052
(column 1, lines 22-30) that one way of creating a distinctive
ring is to vary the cadence. Cadence refers to the rhythmic flow
of a sequence of sounds. Reyes discloses known ways of modifying
the ringing sound of a telephone in which the rings have
different time periods, or a variation in the cadence. We find
that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in view of
the combined teachings of Reyes and Oprea to use a variation in
the time periods for the distinctive ring. Consequently, we will
sustain the rejection of claim 6 and the claims grouped
therewith, claims 7, 13, 14, 19, and 20.
As to claim 15, appellant argues (Reply Brief, pages 6-7)
that the examiner has engaged in impermissible hindsight.
Specifically, appellant contends that the references fail to
provide motivation for using an odometer in evaluating the
location of the vehicle. Claim 15 includes a base station for
calling the user telephone. We have found above that the
combination of Ross and Oprea fails to teach such a limitation.
The additional reference to Greer fails to remedy this
deficiency. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim
15.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed with respect to claims 1
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007