Appeal No. 2002-1136
Application 09/030,601
McMullin does not teach that this function is preformed at the
Internet Service Provider, DCS 50. Therefore, the Examiner has
failed to show that McMullin teaches “converting the call to an
Internet Telephony format at the Internet Service Provider if the
call in not presently in such a format” as recited in Appellants’
claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1, 2, and 5 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over McMullin in view of Krishnaswamy. We note that
claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1 and therefore, recite the step
of “converting the call to an Internet Telephony format at the
Internet Service Provider if the call is not presently in such a
format.” We note that the Examiner has relied on McMullin to
teach this limitation. Furthermore, we note that Krishnaswamy
fails to teach the step as well. Therefore, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 4 for the same reasons
as above.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007