Appeal No. 2000-1690
Application No. 08/697,808
shared screen is used (brief, page 7 and reply brief, page 2).
Although Appellants recognize the disclosure of a group
teleconferencing system by Riddle, Appellants assert that the
mere desire to include teleconferencing capabilities in Ng does
not suggest combining the prior art teachings (brief, page 9 and
reply brief, page 4).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that the interactive group discussion of Ng provides for
communication between students if the tutor “decides to pass the
floor to one of said students to allow communication between one
another” (answer, page 8). The Examiner further recognizes that
Ng fails to explicitly disclose the communication between client
processing devices if the master processing device is absent or
not in communication with the client devices and relies on Riddle
for teaching a teleconferencing system which allows all users to
share and manipulate data (id.).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown
by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007