Appeal No. 1999-1618
Application No. 08/358,354
legends being used for marking an end of a message and for offering
existing possibilities of modifying and erasing messages.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims are:
Kasper et al. (Kasper) 5,177,780 Jan. 5, 1993
Thompson 5,465,401 Nov. 7, 1995
Fennell, J. Kim, “Voice Processing on the mobile Network,” Telecommunications
(International Edition), Vol. 27, No. 2, pp 82-86 (Feb. 1993)
Claims 14, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Thompson and Kasper in view of Fennell.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 13, mailed Nov. 9, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 12, filed Sep. 10, 1998) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007