Appeal No. 2000-1520
Application No. 08/768,715 Page 14
incoming number from its position in memory so as to change the
display sequence of the telephone number when the numbers are
read out from memory using LIFO and/or FIFO. We find no teaching
in Takahata for deletion of the number already stored in memory,
and no convincing line of reasoning has been provided by the
examiner. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed. We observe that claims 5, 7, and 10 depend
from claim 3. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 5, 7, and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
We turn next to claim 4. Appellant asserts (brief, page 10)
that the claim is allowable based upon it's dependency from
claims reciting the LIFO rule. From our review of Hirai, we
agree with the examiner that Hirai teaches the steps of display
of a caller ID on a display unit (see figure 6A), and that Hirai
discloses sequentially displaying the caller ID in memory upon
successive inputs of the search key (see Ld in figure 6A, display
switch 25, and col. 13, line 65 through col. 14, line 4). In
addition, we make reference to our findings with respect to LIFO,
supra, with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 6. Appellant asserts (brief, pages 10
and 11) that the "step of dialing the telephone number is
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007