Appeal No. 2001-2307
Application No. 08/791,266
The conversion in Press, using alternative formats, is thus not merely by “the
CPU itself,” but conversion is performed using an appropriate -- and alternative --
combination of hardware and software. We thus find appellant’s argument with respect
to Press disclosing but one “subsystem” to be unconvincing.
Appellant also suggests that claim 1 requires providing two different data
formats, “only one of which includes compressing the video signal....” (Brief at 22.) We
note, however, consistent with the instant disclosure (e.g., ¶ bridging pages 6 and 7 of
the specification), claim 1 does not require that “only one” of the processed signals be
compressed.
Finally, appellant avers that Press does not teach means for generating the
video signal at the first computer workstation, “as is explicitly recited in independent
Claim 1.” (Brief at 22.) We disagree with the premise of the argument, in that claim 1
does not set forth in the combination, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claim does not require, a means for generating a video signal, much less a means for
generating a video signal “at the first computer workstation.”
We thus find appellant’s arguments with respect to error in the rejection of claim
1 to be unpersuasive. We regard the arguments, in the main, as not being
commensurate in scope with the claims as presented. Having not persuaded us of
error in the rejection of any of the claims rejected over the combined teachings of Press
and Larson, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 13, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007