Appeal No. 2002-2112
Application No. 08/949,534
bus 12, a DSP 18, a daughterboard 25 and a daughterboard connector
(i.e., “the circuit in O’Connell which connects the DSP card to the
A/D interface 25”). According to the examiner (answer, page 7),
“O’Connell discloses in lines 16-22 of column 5 that the optional
A/D interface 25 (CODEC of the instant invention) is for importing
sound from other sources such that DSP 18 which is designed for
processing signals from MIDI 21 can also be used to process
sounds.” The examiner admits (answer, page 8) that “O’Connell does
not state that the DSP is capable of functioning as modem and fax
via the A/D interface 25.” Based upon Davis’ teaching “that a dsp
can be programmed to function as modem (see abstract) and fax (col.
18 line 31),” the examiner contends (answer, page 8) that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to program
the dsp of O’Connell to function as modem and fax.”
Appellant argues (brief, pages 22 and 23) that the A/D
interface 25 in O’Connell does not correspond to either the claimed
daughterboard for providing fax and modem functions or the claimed
coder-decoder, and that “[e]ven if Davis teaches a DSP to function
as a modem, Davis and O’Connell in combination fail to teach or
suggest a DSP on a sound card connected to a daughter board for
providing fax/modem functions.”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007