Appeal No. 1999-0154
Application 08/553,201
interpreted as producing a matched or merged operator service
record as claimed. It is also apparent from the Examiner’s
line of reasoning in the Answer that, since the Examiner has
mistakenly interpreted the disclosure of Olsen as
disclosing the generation of a merged billing operator
services record with the subsequent generation of a call
disposition message based on this record, the issue of the
obviousness of these features has not been addressed.
We are further in agreement with Appellants’ arguments
(Reply Brief, page 6) that even assuming, arguendo, that
Olsen’s ITC and RBOC systems are equivalent to the claimed
card issuing and card accepting networks, there is no
suggestion in Olsen that billing detail and operator services
records are generated in the manner specified in Appellants’
claims. Although the Examiner (Answer, page 14) suggests that
Olsen discloses that records are produced on generation of a
Release Message when a subscriber terminates a call, we find
no such teaching or suggestion in Olsen.
Since all of the claim limitations are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art, it is our opinion that the
-8-8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007