Appeal No. 2003-2065
Application 09/881,441
Appellants argue that claim 11 clearly indicates that the
signals of the voice call and the test data are transmitted along
the same path at the same time and is an important feature of the
invention not disclosed in Lewis. See page 2 of the reply brief.
As pointed out above, we fail to find that the Appellants’
claimed scope requires that the signal of the voice call and the
test data are transmitted along the same path at the same time.
As pointed out above, Appellants simply claimed a signal
comprising a plurality of packets, at least some of which
comprises test voice information. We fail to find that the claim
requires the limitations as argued.
Rejection of Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellants state that claim 13 is dependent on claim 11,
which is patentable over Lewis for the reasons given above. No
other argument is presented. See page 10 of the brief.
37 CFR § 1.192(a) states:
Appellant must, within two months from the date of the
notice of appeal under § 1.191 or within the time allowed
for reply to the action from which the appeal was taken, if
such time is later, file a brief in triplicate. The brief
must be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.17(c) and
must set forth the authorities and arguments on which
appellant will rely to maintain the appeal. Any arguments
or authorities not included in the brief will be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences, unless good cause is shown.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007