Ex parte Yamazaki et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 10, 1998

07910219 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 10, 1998)

Application for patent filed July 9, 1992.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte SHIGERU YAMAZAKI, AKIHIKO HIRAMATU and KAZUO SEKO
__________
Appeal No. 95-3913
Application 07/910,2191
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before KRASS, BARRETT and FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 19. Claims 20 through 24 have been allowed by
the examiner and are not before us on appeal.
Appeal No. 95-3913
Application 07/910,219
2
The invention relates to a 1 x N communication system having
N telephones which are the usual telephone handsets with an
additional press-talk push-button. The press-talk push-button
functions as a contact switch that allows the user to make an
announcement to the other N-1 handsets. Appellants disclose on
page 10 of the specification that Figure 2 shows one embodiment
of Appellants' 1 x N communication system having N telephone
handsets 4 having a press-talk push-button 9, a time division
switching system 10, a press-talk trunk 30 and a central
controller 12. Appellants disclose on pages 10-13 of the
specification that the press-talk trunk 30 receives a signal when
the press-talk push-button 9 is depressed. The press-talk trunk
30 then generates a notification signal and transmits this signal
to the controller 12. The controller 12 controls the time
division switching system 10 to send voice signals from the
telephone handset to all the other telephone handsets.
The independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A 1 x N communication system, where N is an integer
greater than two, comprising:
at least three terminals for sending and receiving
voice signals, having respective press-talk
switches for generating press-talk signals with
active and inactive states;
a time division switching system coupled
separately to each of said terminals, for
Appeal No. 95-3913
Application 07/910,219
In a letter mailed March 21, 1995, the Examiner withdrew the rejection2
of claims 20 through 24.
Appellants filed an appeal brief on July 27, 1994. We will refer to3
this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants filed a reply appeal brief
on January 4, 1995. We will refer to this reply appeal brief as the reply
brief. The Examiner responded to Appellants' arguments presented in the reply
brief with a letter, mailed October 11, 1996. Thus, the reply brief has been
entered and considered.
The Examiner responded to the brief with an Examiner's answer, mailed4
December 14, 1994. We will refer to the Examiner's answer as simply the
answer. We note that the answer contains a new ground of rejection rejecting
claims 14 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Coviello
and Rasmussen. The Examiner responded to the reply brief with a letter, dated
3
switching communication paths among said
terminals;
a press-talk trunk coupled to receive said
press-talk signals from said terminals and
generate a notification signal when a press-talk
signal from any one of said terminals is active;
and
a central controller means coupled to said time
division switching system for controlling said
time division switching system to cause said time
division switching system to send voice signals
from said one of said terminals to all other of
said terminals, responsive to said notification
signal.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Coviello 4,203,011 May 13, 1980
Rasmussen et al. (Rasmussen) 4,754,476 Jun. 28, 1988
Claims 1 through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Coviello and Rasmussen. 2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the3 4
Appeal No. 95-3913
Application 07/910,219
October 11, 1996. Because the Examiner states in the letter that it is a
supplement to the answer, we will treat the letter as a supplemental
Examiner's answer and refer to the letter as simply the supplemental answer.
4
respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we agree
with the Examiner that claims 1, 7 and 9 are properly rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of
these claims but we will reverse the rejection of the remaining
claims on appeal for the reasons set forth infra.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
On page 7 of the brief, Appellants argue that Coviello fails
to disclose a press-talk trunk coupled to receive press-talk
signals when a press-talk signal from any one of the terminals is
active as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. The Examiner shows
that Coviello teaches the press-talk trunk as the combination of
stations circuits (SC1-SCN) shown in Figures 1 and 9. On pages 2
and 3 of the reply brief, Appellants argue that Appellants' claim
Appeal No. 95-3913
Application 07/910,219
5
1 requires a time division switching system coupled separately to
each of said terminals, for switching communication paths among
the terminals, and also requires a press talk trunk coupled to
receive press-talk signals from the terminals. Appellants
further argue Coviello fails to disclose a central controller
means responsive to a notification signal from a press-talk trunk
for controlling the switching system to send voice signals from
one terminal to all other terminals as required by claim 1.
In the supplemental answer, the Examiner responds to these
arguments by pointing out that the station circuits SC1 through
SCN receive a press-talk signal from one of the terminals and
subsequently send notification to the central switching and
control unit to perform the appropriate voice connections to the
other terminals. The Examiner further points out that Coviello
discloses in Figure 1 a controller means 1010 which switches
voice connections amongst the terminals in response to press-talk
signals which are sent form the station circuits SC1-SCN.
After a closer reading of Coviello, we find that Coviello
teaches a switching system, a press-talk trunk and a central
controller means as recited in Appellants' claim 1. In
Appeal No. 95-3913
Application 07/910,219
6
particular, Coviello teaches in column 12, lines 6-38, with
reference to Figure 9 that if the user of station set 1
originates an intercom call in the key telephone system, the call
originates on the "A" path of station set 1. The logic circuit
of station circuit 10' associated with station set 1, controls
switching circuit A which connects an idle link circuit, link1 -
link J. Coviello further discloses that the identity of the
called party is passed to the common register circuit 1050 which
controls the "B" path from the seized link circuit to connect in
switching circuit B to the "B" path of the called telephone.
We find that Coviello teaches a switching system, switching
circuit A and switching circuit B, coupled separately to each of
the terminals, station sets 1-N, for switching communication
paths among the terminals, telephone station sets 1-N, as recited
in Appellants' claim 1. Coviello teaches a signal generated by
the telephone station set when the user presses the intercom
button 31 shown in Figure 7. In addition, Coviello teaches a
notification signal that represents the identity of the called
party that is passed to register 1050. Therefore, we find that
Coviello teaches "a press-talk trunk coupled to receive the
Appeal No. 95-3913
Application 07/910,219
7
press-talk signals from said terminals and generate a
notification signal when a press-talk signal from any one of said
terminals is active" as recited in Appellants' claim 1. Finally,
we find that Coviello teaches a central controller means, link 1-
linkJ and register 1050, coupled to the switching system,
switching circuit A and switching circuit B, for controlling the
switching system to cause the switching system to send voice
signals as recited in Appellants' claim 1. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellants argue that Coviello and Rasmussen fail to teach
the specific limitations of claims 2 through 12. After a careful
review of the references, we agree that Coviello and Rasmussen
fail to teach the specific limitation recited in Appellants'
claims 2 through 6, 8 and 10 through 12. However, Coviello
teaches in Figure 9 that the press-talk trunk, station circuits
1-N, is coupled to the terminals, station sets 1-N, by wires and
receives signals directly from the terminals, station sets 1-N,
as set forth in Appellants' claim 7. Furthermore, we find that
it would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to provide
for at least one of the terminals to be portable as set forth in
Appellants' claim 8. We note that portable hand set telephones
Appeal No. 95-3913
Application 07/910,219
8
which include a portable hand set telephone that transmits
communication signals to a station set connected to the home
phone jack are well known in the art. We note that Appellants'
claim 8 only requires that the terminal be portable, thus a
portable hand set, a terminal, reads on Appellants' claim 8.
On page 4 of the reply brief, Appellants argue that the
proposed combination does not disclose a press-talk trunk for
receiving press-talk signals and voice signals from the terminals
via the switching system as set forth in claims 14 through 19.
Appellants further argue that this embodiment is shown in Figures
2 and 4.
We note that Appellants' claim 14 recites "a press-talk
trunk coupled to said switching system, for receiving said press-
talk signals and said voice signals from said terminals via said
switching system." Therefore, unlike Appellants claim 1,
Appellants' claim 14 requires that the press-talk trunk receive
the press-talk signals and voice signals from the switching
system. Coviello teaches in Figures 1 and 8 that the press-talk
signals and voice signals are received from the switching system.
Therefore, we fail to find that Coviello and Rasmussen teach or
suggest this limitation and we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 14 through 19.
Appeal No. 95-3913
Application 07/910,219
9
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1, 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed;
however, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 2 through
6, 8, and 10 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-3913
Application 07/910,219
10
Appeal No. 95-3913
Application 07/910,219
11
Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Kurz
555 13th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004