Appeal No. 2005-2429 Page 8
Application No. 10/069,612
detector.'" (Examiner's Answer at 4.) He asserts that such a combination would have
been obvious, however, "for the purpose of fully taking advantage of available
services and offering efficient communications (column 13, lines 43 and column 15,
lines 31-32) for the system." (Id. at 5.)
For our part, we agree with the appellants that the sections of Barzegar relied on
by the examiner "do not provide any motivation to combine a particular bandwidth
allocation with the voice-dialing scenario." (Appeal Br. at 14.) As observed by the
appellants, "the cited sections simply indicate the preferred 'embodiment (of Barzegar)
makes it simple and efficient to provide high priority to voice communications by the
ISD 22 by providing a bandwidth on demand . . .' (column 13, lines 43) and provides the
implicit advantage that 'voice dialing may be provided by a different company from the
one that actually makes the call' (column 15, lines 31-34)." (Id.) In other words, both
sections describe advantages of Barzegar's architecture as is, without the modification
proposed by the examiner. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 and of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11-14, which depend therefrom.
III. CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007