Appeal No. 2004-1676
Application 09/263,918
Appellants argue (RBr6):
[A]n ATM terminal ... is very different from a general-
purpose personal computer that can be programmed, easily
updated with new programs, is generally lower cost in
nature, is easily replaceable, etc. There is quite simply
no motivation to alter Kwak's ATM terminal that performs ATM
functions, and that works well for its intended purpose, to,
in hindsight, try to recreate Appellant's invention as
defined by Appellant' independent claims.
We interpret these arguments to be that the ATM terminal in
Kwak performs SAR functions using hardware, rather than the issue
of whether it would have been obvious for the CPU of the ATM
terminal in Kwak to be the CPU of a personal computer. We
conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to implement the software SAR functions in Kwak on any
CPU, including that of a personal computer, to achieve the
advantage taught by Kwak of not needing specialized hardware.
Furthermore, we agree with the examiner that personal computers
perform multimedia communications using ATM data and "the PC
becomes an ATM terminal when the PC is equipped with an ATM SAR
and related hardware" (EA6). That is, the ATM terminal in Kwak
can be an ATM terminal as part of a personal computer.
Appellants acknowledge that it was known that personal computers
implement an ATM adaptation layer (AAL) using SAR chips
(specification, page 3). One of ordinary skill in the art, given
the teachings of Kwak to implement the AAL and SAR in software
instead of hardware (e.g., col. 2, lines 4-9), would have been
motivated to implement the AAL and SAR in software on personal
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007