Appeal No. 2001-2055 Page 10
Application No. 08/750,870
reference's system establishes a communications connection between the caller and
the roamer only if the service requested by the roamer was transparent call forwarding.
If the service requested by the roamer was call notification, in contrast, the system will
not establish such a communication connection between the caller and the roamer.
Therefore, we affirm the anticipation rejection of claim 6, and of claims 1-5, 7-10, and
13-21, which fall therewith.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-10 and 13-21 under § 102(e) is affirmed.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused consideration by
the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(a)(2002).
Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the briefs. Any
arguments or authorities not included therein are neither before us nor at issue but are
considered waived. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007