Appeal No. 2002-1946
Application 08/988,080
connection, the reader may only infer that there is also an
automatic termination of the line itself, although the reader
may also infer that from the automatic suspension operation, the
user would be called upon to perform a manual termination at
will. Because the language corresponding in each independent
claim on appeal requires that the methodology exists for
"instructing" the calling party to do the actual termination, we
would be speculating as to the artisan's interpretation of the
noted teaching. In any event, since it is clear to us that the
noted portion of Low does not teach and also does not clearly
suggest that the calling party actually perform the termination
operation, we cannot sustain the rejection of the claims on
appeal.
The applicability of Figure 14 and the noted teaching at the
top of page 45 is problematic to the extent that there is no
teaching in Low in the subsequent clause of the claims on appeal
of the telecommunication system making a first outbound call leg
to the called party and then a second outbound leg call to the
calling party. However, the discussion of the three embodiments
in Figure 16A-16C make clear that in Figure 16A gateway 90, and
in Figure 16B, gateway 90 and switch 94, and in Figure 16C,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007