Appeal No. 2000-1323
Application No. 08/923,474
The examiner’s response, at pages 22-24 of the answer, is to state that Dilts
teaches the step of creating and displaying an object image symbol using a GUI on the
client workstation and that Bayless teaches the steps of defining a behavior..., inputting the
telephone call information into a text box, collecting the information from a communications
management server and displaying the information, and storing the information in the
communication management database. The examiner then explains why it would have
been obvious to combine the Dilts and Bayless teachings to create the data information
and to send the information to the desired directory. However, the examiner never
addresses the language of steps (c) and (d) of claim 10 regarding the creation of an entry
in the table in the database and sending inputted information to the table in the
communication management server and storing the sent information in the communication
management database.
Accordingly, by not addressing the specific language of the claim and showing how
the disclosure of the applied references apply thereto, the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 10. Thus, we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 10, or of claims 11-13 and 26-30, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. §
103. While Shastry is applied in addition to Dilts and Bayless, with regard to claim 30,
Shastry fails to provide for the deficiencies of Dilts and Bayless.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007