Appeal No. 1999-1618
Application No. 08/358,354
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that the combination of Thompson, Fennell and Kasper does not
teach or suggest the claimed structure as set forth in claim 14 wherein soft keys are used
with a scroll system for utilizing various services with a mobile telephone. (See brief at
page 5.) We agree with appellant.
Beyond the above argument, appellant does not argue the specific limitations with
respect to the combination of references. Appellant paraphrases the examiner position
and paraphrases the language of claim 14 (brief at pages 6 and 7), but does not argue the
limitations of the claims. Appellant maintains that the Fennell reference is more in the
realm of a wish list than an actual teaching. (See brief at page 7.) It is unclear to us
whether appellant intends this to be an argument directed to a non-enabling reference.
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Appellant generally argues that the
combination of Thompson and Fennell would not result in the invention as recited in claim
14. Appellant argues that independent claim 14 recites a soft key which is in a standby
mode, a message menu which contains references to voice messages, text messages
and known and unknown callers which we assume to be an argument that the combination
of Thompson and Fennell does not teach or suggest. We agree with appellant. Appellant
argues that the further combination of Kasper with respect to audible notification of voice
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007