Ex Parte CHADDHA - Page 2



         Appeal No. 2004-2185                                                       
         Application 08/855,245                                                     

              streaming said at least one base layer and at least one               
         selected enhancement layer of said multimedia data to said at              
         least one client computer via said one or more multicast groups            
         by sending a plurality of subsets of an embedded bit stream to a           
         plurality of multicast addresses;                                          
              receiving, in the multimedia server, feedback from at least           
         one client computer; and                                                   
              right-sizing said multimedia data for each of the multicast           
         groups in response to the received feedback by causing the                 
         selection, for each individual multicast group, of at least a              
         subset of the enhancement layers to be streamed to the multicast           
         group as a function of the received feedback.                              
              The following references are relied on by the examiner:               
         Chaddha et al. (Chaddha)      5,621,660      Apr. 15, 1997                 
         Bolot et al. (Bolot), "Scalable Feedback Control for Multicast             
         Video Distribution in the Internet," ACM copyright Notice,                 
         SIGCOMM 94-8/94, pp. 58-67.                                                
              Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  As                 
         evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Chaddha in               
         view of Bolot.                                                             
              Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and                 
         the examiner, reference is made to the brief for appellant's               
         positions and to the answer for the examiner's positions.                  

                                      OPINION                                       
              For the reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer as            
         embellished upon here, we sustain the rejection of all claims on           
                                         2                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007