Appeal No. 2002-1136
Application 09/030,601
converting the call to an Internet Telephony format at the
Internet Service Provider if the call is not presently in such a
format; and
delivering the call to the called party in an Internet
Telephony format for receipt by the called party so that the
parties can converse via using an Internet Telephony protocol.
References
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
McMullin 5,809,128 Sept. 15, 1998
(Filing date Nov. 1, 1996)
Krishnaswamy et al. (Krishnaswamy) 5,999,525 Dec. 7, 1999
(Filing date Nov. 18, 1996)
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1, 2, and 5 through 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by McMullin. Claims 3 and 4 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
McMullin in view of Krishnaswamy.1
Throughout our opinion, we make reference to the briefs2 and
the answer for the respective details thereof.
1 We note that the Examiner has allowed claims 17 through 25.
See page 7 of Examiner’s answer.
2
2 Appellants filed an appeal brief on June 18, 2001.
Appellants filed a reply brief on January 14, 2002. The Examiner
mailed out an office communication on March 14, 2002, stating
that the reply brief has been entered.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007