Appeal No. 1995-4366 Page 8
Application No. 08/150,744
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
this limitation in the prior art. He admits, “Lin did not
specifically disclose ... causing the local data processor to
transmit to a remote location.” (Examiner’s Answer at 6.) As
aforementioned regarding the anticipation of claim 177, the
reference’s local computer merely stores or displays image
data that it receives. Consequently, Lin neither teaches nor
would have suggested recognizing portions of the received
image data as transmission commands. The portion of
Sakakibara cited by the examiner, (Examiner’s Answer at 6),
concerns the receipt of text data and the transmission of an
acknowledgment signal, a tonal signal, voice signals, or voice
data. Col. 4, ll. 42-66. Because the portion of the
secondary reference does not even teach image data, it neither
teaches nor would have suggested recognizing portions of
received image data as transmission commands. Therefore, we
reverse the rejection of claim 178 and its dependent claims
179-183. Next, and last, we address the obviousness of claims
169-175, 184, and 185.
Obviousness of Claims 169-175, 184, and 185
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007