Appeal No. 2002-1997 Page 6
Application No. 08/828,549
DSP 208 for each call (col 10/lines 12-30) . . . ." (Examiner's Answer at 12.) The
appellant argues, "Rogers does not disclose that CO trunk interface 203 and/or PBX
trunk interface 206 includes DSP processors 208 as asserted. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 28.)
Claim 17 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "the network
connection device comprises a signal processing means. . . ." Similarly, claim 18
specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "a signal processing means in a
network connection device. . . ." Accordingly, both claims require a signal processor
located inside the aforementioned network connection device.
Turning to Rogers, the reference's DSP Processors 208 are located neither in
Rogers' CO trunk interface 203 nor in its PBX trunk interface 206. To the contrary,
Figure 2 shows that the DSP Processors 208 are located apart from both interfaces.
Third, the examiner asserts, "Rogers teaches . . . said 208 configured to convert
the signal structure of data signal received for said computer (col 15/lines 6-9) . . . ."
(Examiner's Answer at 12.) The appellant argues, "the protocol and signaling
conversion disclosed by Rogers is for converting 'new types of CO trunk/circuits 102
with their new signaling requirements to older PBX trunk/circuits 105 with their older
signaling requirements' and not converting, by a signal processing means in a network
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007