Appeal No. 2000-2291
Application No. 08/777,721
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting
the claims:
Hayashi 5,479,485 Dec. 26, 1995
(filed Apr. 15, 1991)
Van Buskirk 5,684,260 Nov. 4, 1997
(filed Sep. 9, 1994)
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hayashi in view of Van Buskirk.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference
to the answer (Paper No. 18, mailed October 14, 1999) for the
Examiner’s reasoning, the appeal brief (Paper No. 17, filed
September 13, 1999) and the reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed
December 14, 1999) for Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellant argues that the purpose of generating audio
signals, sounds and voices in Van Buskirk “is not equivalent to
the purpose of providing an audio message indicative of the
operational state of the facsimile apparatus” (brief, page 7).
Additionally, Appellant points out that Hayashi’s step a1 (Figure
5) merely determines whether a reception signal requests
facsimile or telephone communication and switches the connection
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007