Appeal No. 2000-0588 Page 10
Application No. 08/824,110
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 3-5 as being unpatentable over Wingate in
view of Hughes and Rose.
The examiner has also rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wingate in view of Hughes and Sirota. In that Sirota, discussed
supra, also provides no cure for the above-noted deficiency of the Wingate and Hughes
combination, it follows that we also shall not sustain this rejection.
Turning next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 15-17, which depend
from claim 12, as being unpatentable over Wingate in view of Nakajima, we note that
Wingate discloses a toy telephone comprising a handset 18 having a small speaker 30
therein, a ringer (not specifically shown), a message timer (see column 1, lines 42-46;
column 2, lines 3-10; column 4, lines 17-28) operatively coupled to the ringer for
delivering a trigger signal to cause the telephone to ring (generating an attention signal)
and a memory for storing a predetermined message which is to be played. While
Wingate’s disclosure in column 2, lines 3-10, is directed to a mode wherein the timer
produces a trigger signal which causes the telephone to ring and the message to be
delivered to a second speaker 32 on the main body of the telephone, Wingate’s
disclosure of programming the telephone to ring at predetermined times and to display
an image while generating an audio message “in response to the ‘call’ being answered
(column 1, lines 42-46)” is certainly suggestive of providing some sort of switch
actuated by action simulating answering a telephone call in response to a ringing to
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007