Appeal No. 1999-1551
Application No. 08/547,736
since they appear to be no different than the arguments presented with regard to
independent claim 1, we will sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
same reasons we sustained the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Thus, with regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Connolly and
Krebs only, we have sustained the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 11-14 and 20 but we have not
sustained the rejection of claims 7 and 8.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 5, 9, 10, 15-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 based on Connolly, Krebs and Barnes.
With regard to claim 5, the examiner notes that Barnes suggests sending a
rejection signal and sending data regarding system access priority so the second handset
can determine its priority with respect to that dispatch operation, citing column 24, lines
44-65 of Barnes. Thus, the examiner opines that in order to avoid delay by the second
handset in waiting for an acceptance, it would have been obvious to transmit a signal
rejecting the request from the second handset as taught by Barnes, in conjunction with the
system taught by Connolly in view of Krebs [see page 7 of the answer]. Thus, while the
examiner has set forth a reason for combining a suggestion of rejecting a signal, as
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007