Appeal No. 1998-3126 16
Application No. 08/479,569
the rejection of claim 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 16-23, 25, 26, 29,
31-37, 39, 42, 43, and 51-53. The examiner adds Bluthgen to the
basic combination of Ludwig, Microsoft, and Reed. We begin with
claims 29, 31-37, 39, and 51-53 . Appellants only present1
specific arguments with respect to claim 29. Accordingly, we
consider claim 29 to be representative of the group. We make
reference to our findings, supra, with respect to the teachings
of Ludwig, Reed, and Microsoft with respect to claim 54. The
examiner additionally relies upon Bluthgen for a teaching of
audio and video files stored as separate serial packets
accessible by computer workstations.
Appellants assert (brief, pages 10 and 11) that Ludwig is
directed to a hybrid analog/digital teleconferencing system, and
does not mention a particular user interface scheme. Appellants
further assert (brief, page 11) that the system in Microsoft
is not triggered from a video teleconference
application window, does not supply information
concerning video teleconferencing, does not separate
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007