Appeal No. 2000-1561
Application No. 08/768,922
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of dependent claims 5 and 9, which includes
limitations specifying a resend operation on re-establishment of
a call following a disconnection condition, we sustain this
rejection as well. We find no persuasive arguments from
Appellant that would convince us of any error in the Examiner’s
line of reasoning (Answer, page 6) that Kirchner’s description of
the indication of a non-receipt of a transmitted call, which
triggers the disclosed resend operation, corresponds to a call
disconnection condition as claimed.
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of all of the claims on appeal. Therefore,
the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 4-9 is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007