Appeal No. 2003-2053
Application 08/646,500
Upon our review of Larson and Shinjo, we fail to find that
either reference teaches “stacking the accessories serially
between the application and the conference component” as recited
in claim 13 or “linking all automatic accessories serially
between the teleconferencing application and a conference
component” as recited in Appellant’s claim 17. Therefore, we
will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 12, 15 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Larson in view of Leondires. Appellant
argues that neither Larson nor Leondires teaches or suggests
determining if a second end point participating in a
teleconference has a capability of the accessory as required by
claim 12. Appellant agrees that Leondires does teach a multi
audio-video conferencing system that performs a hardware check to
determine if the participant’s system in an audio-video
conference has hardware sufficient to participate in the
conference. However, the Appellant argues that Leondires does
not teach or suggest determining if a second end point
participating in a teleconference has accessories capabilities.
See pages 21 and 22 of the brief. Appellant makes similar
arguments for claim 18 arguing that neither Larson nor Leondires
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007