Appeal No. 2000-1520
Application No. 08/768,715 Page 16
We turn next to claims 11 and 12. Appellant asserts that
claims 11 and 12 define over the cited art for the reasons noted
above by appellant with respect to claims 1-10. The examiner
(answer, page 5) likewise has rejected claims 11 and 12 for the
reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 1-10.
We find that independent claim 11 contains language similar
to the language of claim 3 with respect to deleting from memory
caller ID that is identical to the caller ID of an incoming
telephone number, and transferring the incoming caller ID stored
in a control buffer into the memory according to LIFO.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
independent claim 11, and claim 12 which depends therefrom, based
upon our findings, supra, with respect to claim 3.
We turn next to independent claim 13. Appellant asserts
(brief, page 12) that "as noted above, it would not be obvious to
combine the features of the three references in the fashion noted
by the Examiner." The examiner's position (answer, page 5) is
that Hirai does not store a caller ID according to LIFO, and
relies upon Figa for this feature. The examiner additionally
relies upon Takahata for a teaching of a control unit determining
whether the caller ID stored in the buffer of the control unit is
identical to one of the existing caller IDs stored in memory.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007