Appeal No. 2005-2329
Application No. 09/738,293
same extent appellants may utilize brief mentions of what is known in the
prior art, the examiner may also rely upon them as part of the statement of
the rejection.
As to dependent claim 48, the examiner relied upon a teaching at the
bottom of specification page 32 that the integrated services digital network
is also part of the prior art switched telephone network systems. We
indicated earlier that the teachings at the bottom of column 4 of Tang
clearly teach the use of known digital telephones and digital switching
networks, with which the artisan would clearly appreciate would have been
embodied in prior art Integrated Services Digital Networks (ISDN) as well.
Lastly, we turn to the arguments at pages 16 nd 17 of the brief
regarding independent claim 63. In this claim the collaboration services
suite is recited to utilize “a data network” as well as a separately recited “a
switched telephone network.” These separately recited networks are not
stated to be a part of a public switched telephone network or PSTN, nor
are they recited to be different networks. Our earlier discussion in this
opinion clearly leads us to conclude that the subject matter of this claim
would have been obvious to the artisan as well. Appellants recognize at
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007