Ex Parte Ludwig et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-2230                                                        
          Application No. 10/120,307                                                  

               B)   at least one storage cell configured to                           
                    i)   store audio/video signals; and                               
               C)   at least one signal path,                                         
                    i.)  interconnecting the one or more workstations and             
                    the at least one storage cell,                                    
               wherein the system is configured to                                    
               D)   mark the captured audio/video signals,                            
                    i)   such that the marked audio/video signals                     
                    ii) can later be searched                                         
                    iii) to access a selected portion thereof; and                    
               E)   search the marked audio/video signals                             
                    i)   in the at least one storage cell to access the               
                    selected portion.                                                 
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          P. Venkat Rangan et al., "Software Architecture for Integration             
          of Video Services in the Etherphone System," IEEE Journal on                
          Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 9, No. 9, December 1991,             
          pp. 1395-1404.  (Rangan)                                                    
          Polle T. Zellweger et al., "An Overview of the Etherphone System            
          and Its Applications," 1988 IEEE, pp. 160-168.  (Zellweger)                 
               Claims 21 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as            
          being anticipated by Rangan.                                                
               Claims 24 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as               
          being unpatentable over Rangan in view of Zellweger.                        
               Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 15,              
          mailed October 15, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in           
          support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No.              
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007