Appeal No. 2005-0508
Application No. 09/024,923
also argues that the motivation for combining the teachings of
Chang with Iwami comes from appellant’s own disclosure (id.,
pages 10-12).
The examiner responds that it would not be possible for
the communication server to know which telephone to send the call
setting request to unless the server decoded information received
in the voice communication request to obtain the correct
telephone number. In other words, it is the examiner’s position
that the called telephone number itself constitutes data which
has been encoded into the incoming call. The examiner also
responds that even though claim 1 recites incoming COST or IPNT
calls in the alternative, Iwami does teach the processing of
incoming Internet calls in Figure 11 and the use of a look-up
table in Figure 18. Finally, the examiner explains how the
invention of claim 1 is derived from the teachings of Iwami and
Chang and not from appellant’s own disclosure (answer, pages 5-
8).
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of all the
claims on appeal for essentially the reasons argued by the
examiner in the answer. Specifically, we agree with the examiner
that Iwami clearly teaches connecting calls from a telephone to a
computer or from a computer to a telephone. We also agree with
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007