Appeal No. 2003-2053
Application 08/646,500
common ground of rejection as representative of all claims in
that group and to decide the appeal of that rejection based
solely on the selected representative claim.”) See also, In re
Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1368, 69 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
Appellant makes the same argument as for claim 1 in that
Appellant argues that Larson does not teach accessories
capabilities. See page 28 of brief. Therefore, we find that
Larson teaches all the claimed limitations as recited in claim 19
for the same reasons above.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 2, 6 through 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Larson in view of Shinjo. We
note that claims 2 and 6 through 8 through their dependence upon
claim 1 recites “independent of the teleconferencing
application.” We also note that independent claim 10 recites
“accessory invocation mechanism stacking a plurality of
accessories each independent of the application.” As we have
found above, we fail to find that Larson teaches this limitation.
Furthermore, upon our review of Shinjo, we fail to find that
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007