Appeal No. 2003-2053
Application 08/646,500
conference software package which is designed to provide a
comprehensive software package including all the capabilities and
the information necessary to conduct, store and establish a
conference. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
Electronic Conference Applications 102 are accessories but we
disagree with the Examiner that they are independent of the
teleconferencing application.
We note that claims 5 through 7, due to their dependence
upon claim 1, require that the accessory is independent of the
teleconferencing application. Furthermore, we note that claim 9
also requires that “the accessory provides an additional
capability independent of the teleconferencing application.”
Therefore, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these
claims for the same reasons as above.
For independent claim 11, Appellant argues that the claim
limitation “accessory capabilities,” is not taught in Larson for
the same reasons as argued for independent claim 1. See page 20
of the brief. Furthermore, we note that Appellants did not
respond to the Examiner’s argument that the term “accessory” does
not distinguish over Larson in the Appellant’s reply brief.
As we have discussed above, we fail to find that the
ordinary meaning of accessory requires that the Larson’s
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007