Appeal No. 1997-2656
Application No. 07/907,472
the argument that the examiner has not addressed claim 4 is not persuasive. We find
that appellants' argument at page 13 of the brief is not persuasive. Appellants argue
that lines 17-19 on page 33 of the brief points out that the prior art fails to provide "two
different displays with two different unit-values in on display of two memory portions.”
(See Request for Rehearing at page 8.) This argument does not accurately reflect the
language of either claim 2 or 4 nor do we find it to be a specific argument with respect
to the prior art. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
In item (5) appellants argue that claim 5 differs from claim 1, and differs from
claim 3 because of the inverse relationship between the two recitations. (See Request
for Rehearing at page 9.) We agree that claim 5 is different from claims 1 and 3, but
do not find appellants' arguments persuasive. Appellants argue that "[t]here is no
disclosure or suggestion in Yoshida that such is displayed. However, whether or not
such a disclosure or suggestion is found in Yoshida is clearly a separate question from
whether the underlying concepts are suggested therein." (See brief at page 15.)
Appellants further argue that at page 34 of the brief that appellants set forth a separate
argument for patentability that the prior art does not teach display of plural sets of
different unit values corresponding to different user settable durations of telephone
messages. The examiner has indicated the corresponding teachings in Yoshida and
the line of reasoning associated therewith for modifying the teaching to "inform the
operator of which selection was taken." Therefore, the examiner has established a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007