Appeal No. 2004-1676
Application 09/263,918
(2)
As discussed in section (1), we find that Kwak discloses
that the CPU performs SAR functions using software. While the
SSID hardware transfers ATM cells to and from the double port
RAM, the SSID does not perform SAR as apparently thought by
appellants, and the claims do not preclude the presence of an
SSID. The issue in this section (2) is whether it would have
been obvious for the CPU in Kwak to be the CPU of a personal
computer rather than the CPU of an ATM terminal.
As to the difference of the CPU being the CPU of a personal
computer rather than the CPU of an ATM, the examiner finds that
Kwak teaches that an ATM terminal is a device that performs
telephone service using ATM (FR2). The examiner finds that it
was well known that personal computers perform multimedia
communication and those skilled in the art would have been
motivated to use a personal computer as the ATM terminal (FR3).
Appellants argue that the examiner is basically saying that
it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a
personal computer as the ATM terminal of Kwak and that this
misconstrues the legal standards regarding obviousness (RBr3).
Appellants refer to Ex parte King, 146 USPQ 590 (Bd. App. 1964)
for the proposition that it would not have been obvious to
program a general purpose computer to perform a function without
some suggestion of the function (RBr4). It is argued that the
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007