Appeal No. 2006-1978
Application No. 10/027,572
We further do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection,
based on Alperovich, of independent claim 19 which is also directed to the
teleconferencing aspect of Appellants’ invention. As discussed supra with regard
to claims 6, 12, and 14, we find no disclosure in Alperovich which would
reasonably correspond to the teleconferencing features as set forth in claim 19.
In summary, we have not sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 19. With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 1-18, we have sustained the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, and 15-18,
but have not sustained the rejection of claims 6, 12, and 14. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s decision rejecting appealed claims 1-19 is affirmed-in-part.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007