Appeal No. 2000-1690
Application No. 08/697,808
coordinator when the tutor is absent while nothing in Riddle
points to the combination of a teleconferencing system with a
group discussion system.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 1 because the necessary teachings and
suggestions for combining Ng and Riddle are not shown.
Independent claim 7 also recites a network including a master
calculator and a plurality of client calculators while claim 14
recites a method of communicating between a master device and a
group of client devices. Similar to claim 1, both claims 7 and
14 require communication between client devices if the master
device has allowed such communication or is absent. As discussed
above with respect to claim 1, the prior art neither teaches nor
suggests that the client devices communicate between one another
based on the absence of or permission by the master device.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claims 1, 7 and 14, as well as dependent claims 2, 4,
6, 9-11, 15, 16 and 18, over Ng and Riddle.
We note that the Examiner relies on Buchholz for the use of
a wireless local area network (LAN) connecting a plurality of
user devices (col. 3, lines 53-63) in combination with Ng and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007