Appeal No. 2002-1400
Application No. 09/131,279
from the radio circuit into digital voice data and converting the digital voice data into the
analog voice signal for transmission to the radio circuit and the memory for storing voice
data for an outgoing message and an incoming message. (See answer at pages 3-5
and 12-17.) The examiner repeatedly cites to column 4, lines 48-54 and 57-67 along
with a select other few lines in Payne.
Appellant argues that Payne does not teach all the elements of the claimed
invention as recited in the independent claims and that the answering machine and
voice processor are not in the portable unit. (See brief at page 11 et seq.) We fully
agree with appellant. From our review of the express teachings of Payne and with
special attention to the portions cited by the examiner, we find no express or implicit
teaching or suggestion of incorporating the additional use of an answering machine
connected to the “base station” or “non-portable apparatus” (Payne at column 2, lines
20-33) into the integral hand held device. While the examiner repeatedly incorporates
citations to portions of Payne, we find that none of these portions teach or suggest the
use of an answering machine anywhere but in the base station which is not integral with
the portable unit. Additionally, we do not find any teaching that the answering machine
would have been a digital device which would have included a voice processor and
corresponding memory. While we do not preclude a finding that the use of a digital
answering machine may have been obvious, the examiner has not set this forth as a
rejection based upon obviousness and has not provided any teaching thereof in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007