Appeal 2007-1841
Application 10/144,916
comparison such as a time lapse less than the interval and, correspondingly,
the favourable comparison would be a time lapse greater than the interval.
Generally, the Examiner’s remarks at pages 31 and 32 are persuasive of the
anticipation of claim 1. What the Examiner says appears to be consistent
with Palatsi, notwithstanding Appellant’s arguments to the contrary as to this
claim in the Reply Brief.
Appellant’s separate argument with respect to claim 2 at page 5 of the
Reply Brief is misplaced. Appellant’s arguments in the principal Brief on
appeal group claim 2 with claim 1 and present no separate arguments with
respect to that claim in the principal Brief. As to this claim, the Reply Brief
is not responsive to any argument made by the Examiner with respect to this
claim in the responsive arguments portion of the Answer. Therefore, it is
presented in an untimely manner. The same may be said of the Argument
with respect to claim 6 at page 6 of the Reply Brief. Likewise, the same
may be said of dependent claim 12 argued at page 8 of the Reply Brief. It
was grouped with its parent independent claim 11 at page 10 of the principal
Brief and no separate argument was presented as to it there. Lastly, the
same may also be said with respect to the argument at page 9 of the Reply
Brief as to claim 16.
Page 9 of the principal Brief argues the absence of a message
composure routine associated with dependent claims 3 and 4. We do not
agree with Appellant’s urging that Palatsi does not describe a message
composure routine as broadly recited in claim 3, which appears to be
representative of that claim as well as claim 4. Since figures 3 and 4 of
Palatsi relate to three features as to received phone calls including last calls
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013