Appeal 2007-1841
Application 10/144,916
redial, messages, and lights, it appears to us that Palatsi would inherently
require some form of message composure routine in addition to the explicit
showing in figures 3 and 4 of the symbol “OK” which appears to be a
responsive entry by the user of the phone 1 of Palatsi. These remarks also
appear to us to address Appellant’s arguments at page 12 of the Reply Brief
relative to claim 5 which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments
at that page of the Brief also make reference to a position set forth with
respect to claims 3 and 4 as the basis of traversing the rejection of claims 8
through 10 and 18 through 20, respectively. The degree of immediacy is not
defined in claim 8.
As to dependent claim 7, the arguments at page 9 of the principal
Brief are misplaced. The claim does not recite a comparison of an
occurrence of a time out in one state to the occurrence of a time out in
another state, but merely a comparison of modes of operation. Nevertheless,
we agree with the Examiner’s interpretations of claim 7 at page 33 of the
Answer as to what a status or mode is particularly in view of the expansive
teachings at column 4, lines 1 through 13.
Pages 10 and 11 of the principal Brief on appeal relates to arguments
as to independent claim 11, dependent claims 13, 14, and 17, which
correspond in limitations and in arguments to those previously presented
with respect to claims 1, 3, 4, and 7. It is noted as well that arguments are
relied upon as to claim 21 that were previously presented in the Brief and
addressed by the Examiner and us. As noted earlier in this opinion
independent claim 21 presents corresponding limitations that are
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013