Appeal No. 1999-1551
Application No. 08/547,736
Connolly is the claimed “base station” and that this is responsive to a first handset
requesting a call to be set up (identifying the “Receive Response from Handset” portion of
Connolly). The examiner also identifies that the incoming call is unanswered while the
intelligent base station initializes the “Alerting Connect Call Cipher Messages” routine in
order to route a call to the handset in Connolly. Yet, appellants’ only response [principal
brief-page 10] to the examiner’s position with regard to instant claim 2 is to reiterate the
language of the claim and to say merely that their review of the cited portion of Connolly
“appears to recite a technique for routing a call to a handset.” However, appellants present
no argument to dispute the examiner’s position that this routing of a call is equivalent to
that set forth in instant claim 2. We note that appellants add nothing further in the reply brief
with regard to claim 2.
Accordingly, we will also sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claims 3, 4 and 6, appellants’ “argument,” set forth at page 11 of the
principal brief, is merely a statement that these claims include the limitations of their parent
claims and so should be allowable. In other words, claims 3, 4 and 6 will fall with claims 1
and 2 and so we also sustain the rejection of claims 3, 4 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007