Appeal No. 2004-0008
Application No. 09/547,627
The examiner’s responsive arguments at pages 13 and 14 of the
answer also do not convince us that the teachings in Walker
anticipate the subject matter quoted from these independent
claims.
Because we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1, 16, 33 and 39 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the
rejection of the respective dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 must also be reversed. Thus, the
stated rejections of claims 1 through 43 are reversed.
We reach an opposite conclusion, however, with respect to
the rejection of independent claim 44 and its dependent claim 46
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the rejection of its dependent claims 45
and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the third and fourth stated
rejections of claims 48, 49 and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Independent claims 44, 48, 49 and 50 contain a common
recitation “applying the inquiry information to one or more
models to determine a priority value for each inquiry.” As to
these rejections, we do not agree with appellants’ urging that
Walker does not teach the use of a model. As to independent
claims 48 through 50 as argued at the bottom of page 7 of the
principal brief on appeal, appellants do not argue that Walker
does not teach priority call queueing “to determine a priority
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007