Appeal No. 2000-1520
Application No. 08/768,715 Page 17
We find that claim 13 contains limitations from claims 1, 2,
4, 6, and 9. We affirm the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon our finding, supra, with respect to claims 1,
2, 4, 6, and 9.
We turn next to claim 14. Appellant asserts (brief, page
12) that the cited art does not teach the deletion step of
deleting the caller ID in memory that is identical to the caller
ID stored in the buffer. We reverse the rejection of claim 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon our findings, supra, with
respect to claims 3 and 11.
We turn next to claim 15. Appellant asserts (brief, pages
12 and 13) that claim 15 defines over the prior art based upon
its dependency from claim 15. We agree with the examiner
(answer, page 6) that Hirai teaches ring detecting circuit 12,
and add that the ring signals are received from a telephone
exchange (col. 1, line 42). Accordingly, we affirm the rejection
of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2,
4, 6, 8, 9, 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007