Appeal No. 1998-0905
Application 08/284,061
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the
respective details thereof.3
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the Appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by Appellants and Examiner.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 through 15
and 17 through 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Examiner cites Chen for disclosure of all elements of
independent claims 1, 3, 7, and 32 except for “independent
client applications,” “a communication path,” or use of a WAN
or wide area network. Examiner asserts that DSP manager 71 of
3 Rather than attempt to reiterate Examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by Examiner and Appellants
regarding the rejections, we make reference to the Examiner’s
answer (Paper No. 17, mailed March 5, 1997) and supplemental
answer (Paper No. 20, mailed August 20, 1997) for the
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to Appellants’
brief (Paper No. 16, filed January 23, 1997) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 18, filed May 5, 1997) for the arguments
thereagainst.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007