Appeal No. 2000-2210
Application No. 09/002,828
We further find to be without merit Appellant’s apparent
assertion (Brief, pages 8-12; Reply Brief, pages 3-5) that, even
assuming, arguendo, that Hellhake and Harper could be combined,
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection would fail since the
proposed combination would not teach or suggest all of the claim
limitations. At the outset, Appellant asserts error in the
Examiner’s position that Hellhake discloses a computerized
convergence system providing a convergence environment by
contending that Hellhake’s control box merely “ . . . serves a
single purpose.” (Brief, page 8). We agree with the Examiner
(Answer, page 9), however, that Hellhake clearly contemplates a
multimedia device (such as in appealed independent claim 14) in a
convergence environment since the end user station is disclosed
as including “ . . . a television, a computer, a video-cassette
recorder, a keyboard, or a hand-held controller.” (Hellhake,
column 7, lines 60-62). Further, although it would have been
appropriate for the Examiner to cite an authority for the
definition of “convergence” set forth at page 9 of the Answer, we
find that the Examiner’s proffered definition is not inconsistent
with the accepted definition of such a term.3
3 “Convergence” is defined in Computer Dictionary, p. 96 (2nd Ed.,
Microsoft Press, Redmond, WA, 1994), as “[a] coming together. Convergence can
occur between different disciplines and technologies, as when telephone
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007