Appeal No. 2000-1520
Application No. 08/768,715 Page 13
4 and starts the timer 10e. The microprocessor 10 compares the
detected telephone number with all of the telephone numbers
stored in memory 10a successively. If the telephone number does
not agree with a stored number, the detected number is stored in
memory 10a. From these teachings of Takahata, we agree with the
examiner that an artisan would have considered it obvious to have
stored the telephone number in the memory of Hirai so as to save
memory space by not saving the same number twice.
With regard to claim 2, we are not persuaded by appellant's
assertion that Takahata does not teach the LIFO rule, because the
incoming number stored will be stored according to LIFO in view
of the combined teaching of Hirai and Figa. In addition,
appellant's arguments regarding the deletion step is not
pertinent to claim 2 as this limitation is not present therein.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
With respect to claim 3, we are in agreement with appellant
that Takahata does not suggest deletion of a stored number in
memory upon receipt of an incoming call by the same telephone
number. We find that the combined steps of registering the
incoming number according to LIFO and deletion of the number in
memory does more than save memory, but rather also reorders the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007