Appeal No. 2004-1676
Application 09/263,918
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 16) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 22)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 21) (pages referred to as
"Br__") and reply brief (Paper No. 23) (pages referred to as
"RBr__") for a statement of appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The claims are grouped to stand or fall together (Br6).
The examiner finds that Kwak discloses the claimed subject
matter of claim 1 except that it does not teach that the ATM
terminal is a personal computer (FR2). The examiner finds that
an ATM terminal is a device that performs telephone service using
ATM and that it was well known to use a personal computer to
perform multimedia communications including voice communication
(FR2-3). The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to use a personal computer as the ATM terminal of Kwak (FR3).
Appellants argue that "Kwak quite simply does not teach or
suggest a SAR software module implemented in a central processing
unit (CPU) of a personal computer to implement segmentation
and/or reassembly as set forth in Appellants' independent claims;
and, in fact, the ATM terminal of Kwak utilizing a software
segmentation and reassembly device (SSID) is the very type of
prior art that Appellants' claimed invention was designed to
improve upon" (Br8). This argument about not teaching or
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007