Appeal No. 2003-2053
Application 08/646,500
Shinjo teaches this missing piece. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6 through 8 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 13, 14 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Larson in view of Shinjo. Appellant
argues that neither Larson nor Shinjo teaches or suggests
“stacking the accessories serially between the application and
the conference component” as recited in Appellant’s claim 13.
Appellant agrees that Shinjo teaches an object stacking and
server stacking model for World-Wide Web applications. However,
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not identified and the
Appellant has failed to find any teachings in Shinjo which teach
stacking teleconferencing accessories serially between a
teleconferencing application and a conference component. See
page 23 of the brief. Appellant argues that Larson and Shinjo
fails to teach “automatic accessories serially between the
teleconferencing application and a conferencing component” as
recited by appellant’s dependent claim 17. Appellant argues the
same argument as above in that Shinjo fails to teach stacking
accessories serially between the application and the conference
component. See page 26 of Appellant’s brief.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007