Appeal No. 2003-0663
Application No. 09/072,549
it would have been obvious to apply Verhoeckx in a computer
network “because it would have enabled the video transmission
over existing paths and reduced the need to run new wires”
(answer-page 6).
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 12-14 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Verhoeckx.
With regard to the “TV quality” feature of the instant
claims, the examiner merely points to a disclosure in Verhoeckx,
at column 7, line 32, which indicates a picture frequency of “25
Hz” but the examiner never explains why this is considered to be
“TV quality.” It is not clear from any teaching in Verhoeckx
that the reference provides for TV quality color video images.
Moreover, the instant claims are very specific to a
“computer network,” yet the examiner dismisses this as a “merely
nominal recitation.” Also, the instant claims require a
multiplexing of analog-video signals with digital control-signals
from one of the communication control components. Appellants
have argued, very strongly, that the Verhoeckx digital operations
simply reorganize the synchronization signals themselves, but no
more (principal brief-page 7), so that these digital operations
“in no way involve the introduction of digital control signals
from any sort of communications control component,” as claimed.
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007