Ex Parte Roseman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 5, 2002

07883623 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 5, 2002)

1 In a prior appeal in this application, the Board in a decision dated July 20, 1998 affirmed
the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the
teachings of U.S. Patent No. 5,363,507 to Nakayama et al. In the earlier decision, the Board
indicated (Decision, pages 2 and 3) that “any of the computers shown in Nakayama’s Figure 1
can be considered a ‘host’” computer, and that “[a]ny one of those computers is operative to
generate a common image for display and modification by all users.”
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ROBERT D. ROSEMAN
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0983
Application No. 07/883,623
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and DIXON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 from the final rejection of claims 14 through 21.
Appeal No. 2000-0983
Application No. 07/883,623
2
The disclosed invention relates to a host computer for receiving inputs from a plurality of
local computers, for generating a common image from the inputs, and for distributing the common
image to the local computers.
Claim 14 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
14. A computer system, comprising:
a) a plurality of local computers, each associated with a video camera, a keyboard, and a pointing
device, and each computer capable of receiving
i) video input from its video camera,
ii) keyboard input from its keyboard, and
iii) pointer input from its pointer;
b) a single host computer for
i) receiving said inputs from the local computers;
ii) generating a common visual image, based on said inputs; and
iii) distributing the common image to the local computers.
Appeal No. 2000-0983
Application No. 07/883,623
2 Although the patent to Fields is listed under the references of record (answer, page 2), it
is not recited in the statement of the rejection (paper number 18).
3 Appellant’s argument (brief, page 30) that Shaw can not be used as a reference because
appellant’s filing date precedes Shaw’s filing date of August 29, 1994 is without merit because
Shaw’s effective filing date precedes appellant’s filing date.
3
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Fields2 4,400,724 Aug. 23, 1983
Nakayama et al. (Nakayama) 5,208,912 May 4, 1993
(filed Nov. 15, 1990)
Nakayama et al. (Nakayama) 5,363,507 Nov. 8, 1994
(filed Aug. 12, 1991)
Shaw et al. (Shaw) 5,611,038 Mar. 11, 1997
(effective filing date Apr. 17, 1991)3
Claims 14 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw
in view of the Nakayama references.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 22 and 24), an earlier Office Action (paper
number 18) and the answer (paper number 23) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 14 through 21.
Although we decided in the earlier appeal that any of the computers disclosed by Nakayama
‘507 can be considered a host computer, the claims on appeal now require the host computer to
perform specific tasks, and to share the results of those tasks with other computers. In the
Appeal No. 2000-0983
Application No. 07/883,623
4
Nakayama patents, the circular or ring communication path that connects all of the computers
prevents any one computer from performing the specifically claimed tasks (column 8, lines 60
through 63 of Nakayama ‘507, and column 3, lines 11 through 17 of Nakayama ‘912). According to
Nakayama ‘507 (column 8, lines 60 through 63), input data is propagated to all computers “along
the ring logical communication path 37.” Thus, we agree with appellant’s argument (brief, page 3)
that “[e]ach computer receives data from its neighbor, and passes it along to another neighbor.”
While Shaw discloses that it is well known in the art to physically interconnect audiovisual and
other equipment with a computer in a conferencing environment, Shaw is completely silent as to
one computer taking on the role of host computer to perform tasks such as those set forth in the
claims on appeal. Since none of the computers in the applied references is capable of performing
the claimed tasks of the host computer, the obviousness rejection of claims 14 through 21 is
reversed.
DECISION
Appeal No. 2000-0983
Application No. 07/883,623
5
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 14 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH L. DIXON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/lp
GREGORY A. WELTE
NCR CORP.
INTL. PROP. SEC., LAW DEPT.
Appeal No. 2000-0983
Application No. 07/883,623
6
WORLD HEADQUARTERS
DAYTONA OH 45479