Appeal No. 2003-0330
Application No. 09/533,805
routing call signaling and not the call itself to a service
control point. The examiner notes that the prepaid platform in
Donovan inherently could be a service control point. The
examiner cites Granberg as teaching a system which routes call
signaling and not the call itself to a service control point.
The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan
to modify Donovan to route the call signaling and not the call
itself to a service control point as taught by Granberg [answer,
pages 3-4].
Although appellants nominally assert that independent
claims 1, 13, 23 and 32 stand or fall separately, appellants make
the identical arguments for each of these claims so that we will
consider them together. Appellants argue that Donovan and
Granberg relate to two entirely different systems, and the
artisan would not have been motivated to combine Donovan and
Granberg for this reason. Appellants also argue that neither
Donovan nor Granberg involves a Signal Transfer Point (STP) as
the claimed invention does. Appellants also argue that neither
Donovan nor Granberg teaches routing call signaling and not the
call itself to a service control point for prepaid calls [brief,
pages 4-7].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007