Appeal No. 2003-2053
Application 08/646,500
to those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.” Tex.
Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64
USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
We agree with the Examiner that the term “accessory” does
not require independence. Accepting the definition provided by
the Appellant, the definition only requires that the accessory be
a subordinate or supplementary item. Thus, we find that Larson
does teach conferencing applications which are accessories and
that they are supplemental or subordinate items to the
teleconferencing application. We further note that in the reply
brief, Appellant does not argue that the term accessory requires
more.
However, the Appellant does argue that the claim recites
“independent of the teleconferencing application.” Upon our
review of Larson, we fail to find that the teleconferencing
applications are independent of the teleconferencing software.
Larson clearly teaches that the desktop software package includes
a number of Electronic Conferencing Applications 102. See Larson
column 13, lines 42 through 58. Clearly, Larson teaches that the
Electronic Conferencing Applications 102 are part of the desktop
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007