Appeal No. 2001-1851
Application No. 08/815,363
Claim 16 sets forth that the access server is connected to a terminal via a
switched path through a central office switching system in response to a dial up call
from the terminal. We do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 16, for
substantially the same reasons that we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
However, we do not consider appellants’ arguments to be commensurate with
the requirements of claim 25 and claim 27. Neither claim sets forth any connection in
response to a “dial up call” from a terminal. Each claim recites “routing a data call from
one of said premises to a central office switching system” to which it is connected. In
view of appellants’ disclosure (e.g., spec. at ¶ bridging pages 29 and 30; Fig. 4, ref.
num. 16), the “routing” may require nothing more than twisted pairs of conductors from
a user’s computer to the central office switching system.
We compare the “routing” requirement expressed by claim 25 and claim 27 with
the teachings of Sistanizadeh and find it met by the reference. Sistanizadeh at column
8, lines 23 through 33 reveals that customer premises 1010 and 1012 (Fig. 10) may be
connected to a central office (CO) by copper loops 1014 and 1016.
Appellants have thus not persuaded us that the evidence relied upon by the
examiner fails to show prima facie obviousness of the subject matter as a whole of
claim 25 and claim 27. We therefore sustain the section 103 rejection of each of the
claims.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007