Appeal No. 2003-2053
Application 08/646,500
the Examiner’s rejection of the claims 2, 6 through 8, 10, 12, 13
through 15, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
For claim 1, Appellant argues that Larson fails to teach the
limitation of claim 1 requiring an accessory capability.
Appellant argues that the plain meaning of the term “accessory”
is defined in the American Heritage College Dictionary as a
subordinate or supplementary item; an adjunct. Appellant argues
that Larson fails to teach accessories that are not part of the
teleconferencing software package or teleconferencing application
software package. See pages 8 and 9 of the Brief.
The Examiner responds by stating that the definition relied
on by Appellant does not require that the subordinate be a
separate entity. The Examiner points out that the term
“accessory” does not distinguish over the Larson’s
teleconferencing software application. See page 10 of the
Examiner’s answer.
Appellant responds to the Examiner’s argument in Appellant’s
reply brief, stating that independent claim 1 not only recites
accessory capability but also recites “a capability of the
accessory is provided during a teleconference, independent of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007