Appeal No. 1997-2989
Application No. 08/280,343
and 136 the host can activate either one (col. 7, lines 7 to
16). There is no provision in Lewis of displaying each of the
pending requests for attention of the host.
The same, or a corresponding, limitation appears in the
other claims of this group. Therefore, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 1, 9, 10 and 15 and their
dependent claims 2 to 8, 12 to 14 and 17 to 19 over Lewis.
Claims 4, 14, 19 and 21
We take claim 21 of this group since it does not contain
the limitation discussed above. However, claim 21 recites the
means for "determining whether a communication is occurring
from the master workstation to one of said other
workstations", "determining whether said other workstation has
a request pending at the master workstation" and "removing
said pending request from the workstation." We agree with
Appellants [brief, pages 8 to 9 and reply brief, pages 3 to 4]
that this concept is missing
from Lewis. In Lewis, there is no provision for the host to
communicate with a remote station that has not sent a call to
the host. Also missing in Lewis is any provision for checking
to see if such remote station has a pending call in the queue
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007