Appeal No. 2001-2270
Application 09/235,529
prima facie case of obviousness which has not been shown to be in
error. The rejection of claims 2 and 10 is sustained.
Group III: Claim 12
Claim 12 depends on claim 9 and recites "further comprising
adjusting a level of the dialing signals received by a detector
in response to attenuation." It appears that this limitation
refers to the interfacing or equalizing network 216 which is
designed to ensure that the voltage amplitude of a received DTMF
signal is substantially the same whether or not the relay SW1 is
in an open or closed condition (e.g., spec. at 20, lines 13-15).
As noted by appellants (Br8), the examiner does not address
claim 12 in the final rejection. In the examiner's answer, the
examiner states that "Stevens in view of Eaton clearly teach the
use of AC loads that attenuate and/or adjust the level of dialing
signals down to a certain level (e.g., from 3 dB to 30 dB) in
response to the attenuation" (EA9). Appellants respond that
claim 12 recites adjustment in response to the attenuation, not
the attenuation itself, and that no other adjustment of the
signal in response to the attenuation is taught in any of the
cited references (RBr11).
We agree with appellants that attenuation alone does not
meet the limitations of claim 12. The examiner has not shown how
- 14 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007