Appeal No. 2000-2291
Application No. 08/777,721
to the corresponding device (brief, page 8 and reply brief, page
9). Finally, Appellant argues that even if determining the
operational state is whether a reception signal is detected or
not, the user of the cordless handset would not be informed by an
aural message stored in the voice mixer that the facsimile
apparatus is in reception mode (brief, page 9 and reply brief,
page 11). In that regard, Appellant asserts that the handset is
informed only when a ringing burst indicates the state of not-
receiving wherein the burst is neither an aural message nor
stored in a voice mixer (reply brief, pages 10 & 11).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that incorporating the step of transmitting an aural message
stored in a voice mixer of Van Buskirk in Hayashi’s method of
sending a message to a user of a cordless handset would have been
obvious (answer, page 4). The Examiner further argues that
Hayashi’s step a1 (Figure 5) determines an operational state of
the facsimile by determining whether the facsimile is receiving
or not (answer, page 10).
The initial burden of establishing reasons for
unpatentability rests on the Examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Where, as
here, a conclusion of obviousness is premised upon a combination
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007