Appeal No. 2000-1520
Application No. 08/768,715 Page 11
by caller name and number, in addition to searching by LIFO
and/or FIFO, all of which are taught by Figa. From all of the
above, the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 2-7 and 9-15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hirai considered with Figa
and Takahata. We begin with claims 2 and 3. Appellant asserts
(brief, page 10) that Takahata does not teach the LIFO rule
recited in claims 2 and 3. Appellant further asserts (id., and
reply brief, page 10) that deleting the earlier existing caller
ID from memory is not equivalent to storing only partial data of
caller IDs previously stored.
The examiner's position (answer, page 4) is that Hirai in
view of Figa do not teach the limitations of claims 2 and 3. The
examiner relies upon the teachings of Takahata for these
features. With regard to claim 3, the examiner acknowledges that
Takahata does not teach the step of deleting from memory the
caller ID that is identical to an incoming caller ID. The
examiner takes the position that this limitation would be obvious
in view of Takahata's teaching of storing only the frequency of
arrival of a telephone number when the incoming number is
identical to a number stored in memory.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007