Appeal No. 2002-1422 Page 3
Application No. 08/753,197
Claims 1, 2, 5-29, and 31-40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over U.S. Patent No. 4,959,855 (“Daudelin”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,608,786
(“Gordon”).
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellant in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. Admitting “that Daudelin does not
teach a public packet data internetwork that comprises a portion of the Internet and is
connected between the PSTN and the directory assistance system,” (Examiner’s
Answer at 4), the examiner makes the following assertion.
[I]t would have been obvious . . . to apply Gordon's teaching in Daudelin's
system to use the Internet and access nodes in place of the voice and
data switching network 12 to connect the originating telephone network
(represented by local switch 30) to the destination telephone network
(represented by local switch 32) and to the directory assistance system 56
with the motivation being to reduce cost and expand system
reachability [sic].
(Id. at 5-6.) The appellant argues, "[t]here is no explanation given in the Examiner's
Answer of why the proposed modification of Daudelin's disclosed solution to this
problem, by somehow providing an Internet link, would have resulted in cost savings."
(Reply Br. at 4.)
“[T]o establish obviousness based on a combination of the elements disclosed in
the prior art, there must be some motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007