Appeal No. 2006-2679
Application No. 10/359,882
Considering the reference as a whole, the reference supports the examiner’s finding
that Sawaya discloses automatically printing caller ID information.
Further, we agree with the examiner that, in view of the artisan’s knowledge that
caller ID information was normally transmitted between the first and the second ring
signal, there was requisite suggestion from the prior art to print the information
“immediately” after receipt of a first ring signal and without user intervention, within the
meaning of instant claim 1. Once the machine-generated and machine-received
information is obtained (e.g., time, date, and caller ID information relating to the call),
the information would be ready for printing, and should be. The suggestion to combine
may come from the prior art, as filtered through the knowledge of one skilled in the art.
Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1472, 43 USPQ2d 1481, 1489
(Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015,
1025, 226 USPQ 881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[T]he suggestion to modify the art to
produce the claimed invention need not be expressly stated in one or all of the
references used to show obviousness. ‘Rather, the test is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.’”) (quoting In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881).
We have considered all of appellants’ arguments in the Brief but are not
persuaded of error in the rejection over Sawaya and Asano. We also find appellants’
arguments in the Reply Brief, which are based in the main on allegations of
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007