Appeal No. 2000-1690
Application No. 08/697,808
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 14-16 and 18 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ng and
Riddle.
Claims 3 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ng, Riddle and Buchholz.
Claims 5, 12, 13 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ng, Riddle and Lewis.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make
reference to the answer (Paper No. 13, mailed October 6, 1999)
for the Examiner’s reasoning, the appeal brief (Paper No. 12,
filed July 19, 1999) and the reply brief (Paper No. 15, filed
January 10, 2000) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-11,
14-16 and 18, Appellants argue that Ng discloses an interactive
group discussion system in which the participant who has the
“floor control” can modify files while others share their views
with the group (brief, page 7). Appellants further assert that
while the tutor is the only one who can mostly “modify” the
shared information, nothing in the system of Ng prevents a group
discussion or students from communicating with one another when a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007