Appeal No. 2002-2112
Application No. 08/949,534
appellant’s own disclosure9 (i.e., Figure 210 and supposedly Figure
3) with the teachings of Davis is reversed.
Turning lastly to the obviousness rejection of all of the
claims on appeal based upon the “host CPU 11, buses, memories,
controller 14, modem CODEC 152, sound CODEC 153 and DSP 151 for
processing sound, modem and fax” teachings of Ninomiya, and the
programming of a DSP to function as a “sound card, modem and fax”
teachings of McLaughlin (answer, page 9), we agree with the
appellant (brief, pages 25 and 26) that:
Ninomiya does not teach or suggest that the DSP 151 is
loaded with “modem and fax software.” Further, Ninomiya
does not teach or suggest that the modem CODEC 153 [sic,
152] is part of a daughter board connected to the DSP
151. Finally, as recognized by the Examiner, Ninomiya
fails to recite a DAA. Even if McLaughlin can be used to
show inherency of a DAA, which Appellant does not admit,
Ninomiya thus fails to teach or suggest all of
Appellant’s claimed elements.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of all of the claims on
appeal based upon the teachings of Ninomiya and McLaughlin is
9 An obviousness rejection can not be established via the
use of impermissible hindsight.
10 If by chance Figure 1 was the intended figure, we agree
with the appellant’s argument (brief, page 24) that “Figure 1 and
Davis in combination fail to teach or suggest a daughter board,
such as one containing a DAA and CODEC, connected to a DSP of a
sound card, where a memory coupled to the DSP is loaded with
fax/modem software and sound card software.”
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007