Appeal No. 2003-0330
Application No. 09/533,805
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 37
and 38 for the reasons argued by appellants in the briefs. The
applied prior art references say nothing about making service
type determinations based on Translation Type mapping capability.
The examiner simply states that “Donovan in view of Granberg
shows determining if the call is one of a prepaid type and a
postpaid type based on Translation Type mapping capability of at
least one of a Signaling Control Connection Point (SCCP) layer of
Signaling System 7 (SS7) and SS7 User Part (ISUP) messaging
[answer, pages 13-14]. We have carefully reviewed the applied
references, but we can find nothing in these references which
supports the examiner’s assertion. The examiner’s position is
tantamount to saying that Translation Type mapping capability is
inherent in the operation of Donovan. There is no evidence on
this record to support the examiner’s position. Obviousness
cannot be established on the examiner’s unsupported opinions.
Appellants argue that “Donovan fails to teach how the
determination is made as to what the service type is. Nowhere
does Donovan teach determining a service type based on
Translation Type mapping or Translation Type capability” [reply
brief, page 3]. Appellants’ position with respect to Donovan
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007