Appeal No. 1999-1618
Application No. 08/358,354
mail rather than a visual notification does not result in the invention as recited in
independent 14. We agree with appellant that the combination would not teach or suggest
the claimed invention as maintained by the examiner.
The examiner admits at page 5 of the answer that the combination of Thompson and
Fennell “fail[s] to disclose a call to a voice message service being initiated by pressing the
soft key. Nevertheless, Kasper discloses having a voice mail notification arrangement
provides an audible notification, instead of a visual notification, to a mobile radiotelephone
that one or more incoming calls have been directed to a subscriber’s mailbox . . . the use
can activate a key and input the required telephone number.” (See answer at page 5.)
Here, the examiner cites to Kasper for support, yet we find no support for the examiner
reliance on Kasper to teach or suggest the limitation admitted as lacking in the base
combination. The examiner then merely concludes that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to place a call to a voice message
service to be initiated by pressing a soft key, in order to allow subscribers to access their
voice mail in efficient and reliable manner. (See answer at page 5.) We disagree with the
examiner. From our review of Kasper, we find no teaching or suggestion to place a “call to
a voice message service being initiated by pressing the soft key ‘listen’” as recited in
claim 14. Kasper does not disclose or suggest the use of an soft key type functions or a
standard speed dial function from which to teach or suggest a shortcut to access voice
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007