Appeal 2007-0437
Application 09/982,224
of page 5 of our prior decision. Because Appellants have not recited in the
claims the meaning of the word “defined” of “defined intervals,” as we
noted earlier in this opinion, we do not agree with Appellants’ views that,
because Brown teaches the need to synchronize commands regularly
transmitted between collaboration terminals during a reconciliation process,
Brown does not meet this limitation. No fixed interval of time is stated. At
any time interval in Brown that reconciliation is necessary, the commands
are regularly transmitted to do so in this reference. Under these
circumstances, Brown may not be fairly characterized as teaching away from
the present invention since there is simply no active discouragement from
following the paths set out in the reference or any teaching that would have
led the artisan in a direction divergent from the path taken by Appellants to
the extent broadly recited in the independent claims on appeal.
Lastly, Appellants do not make any comments in the Request for
Rehearing with respect to the Kumar patent relied upon by the Examiner in
conjunction with Brown and Caronni together within 35 U.S.C. § 103. In
our discussion at pages 5 and 6 of our prior decision, we briefly explained
our view of Kumar’s real-time collaboration environment taught to be
synchronous among plural collaborators. Kumar was considered to have
buttressed the teachings of Brown and Caronni. It should be emphasized
here that the decision of affirming the rejection of the Examiner is not based
upon Brown alone, but upon the collective teachings within 35 U.S.C. § 103
of Brown, Cumar, and Caronni as argued by the Examiner and expanded
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013