Appeal No. 1999-0154
Application 08/553,201
d) generating a call disposition message from the
matched billing detail record and operator service record in
the call disposition messaging system.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Olsen et al. (Olsen) 5,008,929 Apr. 16,
1991
Ahearn et al. (Ahearn) 5,163,086 Nov. 10,
1992
Claims 1-12 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner offers Olsen alone
with respect to claims 1-5 and 7-11, and adds Ahearn to Olsen
with respect to claims 6 and 12.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the 1
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
1The Appeal Brief was filed March 4, 1998. In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated April 15, 1998, a Reply Brief
was filed June 12, 1998 which was acknowledged and entered by
the Examiner without further comment as indicated in the
communication dated July 2, 1998.
-3-3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007