Appeal No. 2003-0813
Application No. 08/771,885
“conventional telephone lines” cannot constitute the claimed direct connection to “a
wide area communications network.” Appellant argues that the “differences between
communication via telephone lines and a WAN are significant, relating to speed,
protocol, etc.” (brief-page 6) and that while many systems can use both types of
communication systems, Kawan “specifically chose not to use WAN” (brief-page 6) in
order to preserve the appearance of a telephone system.
The examiner’s response is to refer us to an office action of June 14, 2001
(Paper No. 21) and to argue that there is no functional difference between the claimed
connection and the reference system connection to a network because Ahlin/Kawan
“performs exactly the same function as the claimed in terms being connected to the
network to perform the claimed function. It was commonly known at the time of
invention that one of ordinary skill in the art can easily connected via phone line or any
other known network connection means” (sic, answer-page 7).
We will sustain the examiner’s position. The examiner should have cited a
specific reference to buttress the finding that the use of a WAN would be a design
choice and/or that the skilled artisan would have known about employing many different
types of interconnection networks, including telephone connections and WAN.
However, under the circumstances, we will not hold the examiner’s lack of a reference
to be reversible error.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007