Appeal No. 2000-1520
Application No. 08/768,715 Page 12
We note at the outset that notwithstanding the statement by
the examiner that Figa does not teach any of the limitations of
claims 2 and 3, we find that some of the limitations of claims 2
and 3 are taught by Figa. We find from the disclosure in Figa
(col. 3, line 65 through col. 4, line 18) that the display system
includes a number detector 12 that detects the number of a
caller. The detected number is compared with the telephone
numbers stored in directory 16 by comparator 18. We find that
the telephone number will inherently be temporarily stored during
the time that the comparator is comparing the telephone number
with the numbers in the directory 16. In any event, we agree
with the examiner and appellant that Hirai considered with Figa
does not suggest claims 2 or 3 because if the user decides to
store the incoming number in the directory, the number is not
transferred to storage from its inherent temporary storage during
the comparison step, but rather is stored from a log entry or
inputted by the user.
From our review of Takahata, we agree with the examiner, for
the reasons set forth in the answer (page 4) that Takahata
considered with Hirai and Figa suggests the limitations of claim
2. Takahata teaches (col. 5, lines 6-31) that the microprocessor
10 reads the detected telephone number from the detection circuit
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007