Appeal No. 2003-2053
Application 08/646,500
teaches automatically identifying which capabilities of the
automatic accessories are common to a local end point and remote
end point as recited by claim 18.
Appellant points out that the plain meaning of the term
“accessory” requires something nonessential but desirable. We
agree with this definition. Thus, accessory cannot be essential
to the application as to their existence. Therefore, we fail to
find that Leondires teaches determining if a second end point
participating in a conference has an accessory capability. We
fail to find that a teaching in Leondires of an essential
hardware component can read on the above language. Therefore, we
will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 15 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In view of the foregoing, we have affirmed the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 9, 11, 16, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
and we have reversed the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Furthermore, we have reversed the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6 through 8, 10, 12 through 15,
17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007