Appeal No. 2006-3280
Application No. 09/874,152
It is therefore our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in
the particular art would not have suggested to the ordinarily
skilled artisan the invention as set forth in claims 1, 4 through
10, and 21 through 28. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 4 through 10, and 21
through 28.
II. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Is the Rejection of Claims 11 through
20 as being unpatentable over the combination of Weisser and
Knoerle Proper?
With respect to 11 through 20, Appellants argue in the Briefs
that neither Weisser nor Knoerle teaches dialing the subscriber
line from the intelligent peripheral of the AIN
telecommunications system to determine whether the subscriber
line is no longer busy. We have already addressed this argument
in the discussion of representative claim 1 above, and we agree
with Appellants.
It is therefore our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill
in the particular art would not have suggested to the ordinarily
skilled artisan the invention as set forth in claims 11 through
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007