Appeal No. 2002-0807
Application No.08/672,588
instructions to be executed as a result of the communicated state
corresponding to the media portion of the application running on
the first processor.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Crawford et al. (Crawford) 5,261,095 Nov. 09, 1993
Fin et al. (Fin) 5,537,548 Jul. 16, 1996
(filed Jun 14, 1994)
Laursen et al. (Laursen) WO 96/17306 Jun. 06, 1996
(Published International Patent Application)
Claims 2-7, 9-18, 22-24, and 26-32, all of the appealed
claims, stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Crawford in view of Laursen and Fin.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner, the arguments in support
of the rejection, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
1 The Appeal Brief was filed July 31, 2001 (Paper No. 32). In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated January 2, 2002 (Paper No. 33), a Reply Brief
was filed March 4, 2002 (Paper No. 34), which was acknowledged and entered by
the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated March 22, 2002 (Paper No.
35).
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007