Appeal No. 1998-3126 2
Application No. 08/479,569
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Reed et al. (Reed) 5,241,671 Aug. 31, 1993
(filed Oct. 26, 1989)
Sato et al. (Sato) 3,396,338 Mar. 07, 1995
(filed Feb. 21, 1991)
Bluthgen 5,587,979 Dec. 24, 1996
(effectively filed Jan. 17, 1989)
Ludwig, “Integration of CAD/CAE with Multimedia
Teleconferencing and Messaging Via Broadband Networks
and Shared Resource Servers” IEEE Systems Integration
‘90 Conference Proceedings, May 1990, pp. 136-143.
Microsoft® Windows™ (Microsoft), User’s Guide for the
Microsoft Windows Operating System, 1991, pp. 42-46.
Claims 54-59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Microsoft and Reed.
Claims 16-23, 25, 26, 29, 31-37, 39, 42, 43, and 51-53 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ludwig in
view of Microsoft, Reed, and Bluthgen.
Claims 27, 28, 40, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Microsoft, Reed,
Bluthgen, and further in view of Sato.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007