Appeal No. 1998-2983
Application No. 08/481,230
IBM, “Person to Person, Personal conferencing - communications that work”, Ultimedia,
October 1991.
Claims 1-6, 9, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maruo. Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Maruo in view of IBM. Claims 7-8, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maruo in view of Myers.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 27, mailed May 11, 1998) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ amended brief (Paper No. 26 1/2, filed Oct. 14, 1997) for
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants have grouped the claims in four separate groupings and provided
separate arguments thereto. (See brief at page 9.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007