Appeal 2006-2366
Application 09/756,831
the physical body of the device (col. 6, ll. 2-11). Thus, Trane suggests an
“interposer” by providing for the necessary electrical and mechanical
interface to connect the I/O device to the computer.
Turning now to the rejection of the remaining claims, we note
Appellant’s reliance on similar arguments as presented above with respect to
claims 1, 4 and 7 (Br. 14-17). Appellant further argues that Trane does not
show any connection between the cellular phone and the hard drive in Figure
6 (Reply Br. 15) and mainly performs a simple switching function (Reply
Br. 16). We again agree with the Examiner that the software for handling
telephone messaging facsimile, internet connection, etc. in Trane suggests
that the computer is operable to execute communication software
instructions for controlling communication between the computer and the
I/O device. Trane discloses that it is the computer that includes the software
to handle telephone functions (col. 9, ll. 56-61) which suggests the presence
of communication instructions in the software to control communication
between the computer and the cellular phone if the computer is to handle the
above mentioned functions. Thus, based on the presented arguments, the
weight of evidence in support of each side and our findings above, we find
the Examiner’s case of prima facie obviousness to be reasonable and sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-14 over Trane alone.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013