Appeal No. 2000-0983
Application No. 07/883,623
Nakayama patents, the circular or ring communication path that connects all of the computers
prevents any one computer from performing the specifically claimed tasks (column 8, lines 60
through 63 of Nakayama ‘507, and column 3, lines 11 through 17 of Nakayama ‘912). According to
Nakayama ‘507 (column 8, lines 60 through 63), input data is propagated to all computers “along
the ring logical communication path 37.” Thus, we agree with appellant’s argument (brief, page 3)
that “[e]ach computer receives data from its neighbor, and passes it along to another neighbor.”
While Shaw discloses that it is well known in the art to physically interconnect audiovisual and
other equipment with a computer in a conferencing environment, Shaw is completely silent as to
one computer taking on the role of host computer to perform tasks such as those set forth in the
claims on appeal. Since none of the computers in the applied references is capable of performing
the claimed tasks of the host computer, the obviousness rejection of claims 14 through 21 is
reversed.
DECISION
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007