Appeal No. 2002-1755
Application No. 09/173,286
networks such as the PSTN. Moreover, appellants contend that
Nakatsu does not disclose or suggest the claimed audio adjunct
connected to a second “data” network.
We agree with the examiner that the term “data” network is
broad enough to cover telephone line “data.” We also agree with
the examiner that appellants’ argument re a “data network” being
suggestive of a packet-based computer network is not convincing
because claims 10 and 13 do not require a “packet-based computer
network.” Further, Nakatsu’s voice card connected to a PSTN and
a LAN is clearly suggestive of an audio adjunct connected to a
second “data” network and appellants have not convinced us
otherwise.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 10 and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is sustained.
Claims 11 and 12 add to claim 10 the limitation of the
computer readable memory comprising a sequential greeting module,
a parallel greeting module and a multimedia module.
The examiner relies on Microsoft Office for this limitation
and asserts that it would have been obvious to combine this
reference with Nakatsu to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Appellants argue that the claimed “parallel greeting module”
is not disclosed by Microsoft Office because the claimed parallel
-10–
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007