Appeal No. 2002-2112
Application No. 08/949,534
We agree with appellant’s arguments that the A/D interface 25
in O’Connell is incapable of performing both coder-decoder
functions, and it does not include daughterboard circuitry that
functions in concert with a DSP to provide fax and modem functions.
Thus, even if the DSP in O’Connell is reprogrammed to handle fax
and modem functions as taught by Davis, the applied reference would
still neither teach nor would have suggested to the skilled artisan
a daughterboard with fax and modem circuitry that will operate with
the reprogrammed DSP to provide fax and modem functions as claimed.
In short, the obviousness rejection of all of the claims on appeal
based upon the teachings of O’Connell and Davis is reversed.
In the obviousness rejection of all of the claims on appeal
based upon the admitted prior art and Davis, we agree with the
examiner (answer, page 8) that Figure 1 of the disclosed drawing is
admitted prior art, but we disagree with the examiner (answer,
pages 8 and 9) that Figure 2 is admitted prior art8. In light of
this glaring error, the obviousness rejection of all of the claims
on appeal based upon the examiner’s proposed modification of
8 It appears that the examiner has mistakenly labeled Figure
3 of the drawing as admitted prior art along with Figure 2 of the
drawing (answer, page 9).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007