Appeal No. 2002-2000
Application No. 08/933,911
number is not one that is associated with the valid roaming mobile
station as set forth at the end of claim 7. At least with respect
to the first option, the teaching at column 8, lines 50-52 and the
discussion in the paragraph bridging columns 8 and 9 of Reininghaus
indicate that it was known in the art to complete a call using
conventional call completion techniques in addition to the prior
art teaching already discussed earlier with respect to column 1 of
Reininghaus. As to dependent claim 8, it clearly would have been
obvious to the artisan and is well know in the telephonic art that
if a particular called telephone number is determined not to be
within a given call region, the call itself is or may be
terminated.
In summary, we have reversed the examiner’s stated rejection
of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. On the other hand, we have
instituted a new rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-12 under 37
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the teachings of Reininghaus in
view of Lee and, as to claims 9-12, separate reliance upon
Reininghaus alone.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.196(b). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that, “[a] new
ground of rejection shall not be considered final for purposes of
judicial review.”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007