Ex parte AHIMOVIC et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-0498                                                        
          Application No. 08/541,471                                                  


               means for generating and sending data, video and audio                 
          signals to said at least one other node and for receiving and               
          processing data, video and audio signals from said at least                 
          one other node; and                                                         
                    means for grouping the video and audio signals into               
          video and audio frames, respectively, and for interleaving the              
          video and audio frames on a sequential one-to-one basis before              
          transmission to said at least one other node.                               
               The following references are relied on by the examiner;                
          Tompkins et al.          4,710,917           Dec. 01, 1987                  
          Hayden et al.            4,953,159           Aug. 28, 1990                  
          Laycock                  5,202,759      Apr. 13, 1993                       
                                   (filing date, Jan. 24, 1992)                       
          Nakayama et al.          5,280,583           Jan. 18, 1994                  
                                   (filing date, Sep. 3, 1992)                        
          Hosono et al.            5,392,165           Feb. 21, 1995                  
                                   (filing date, Feb. 13, 1992)                       
               All the claims on appeal earlier noted stand rejected                  
          under 35 USC § 103.  As to claims 3, 6, 10, 17, 21 and 25 the               
          examiner relies upon the combination of Tompkins, Laycock and               
          Hosono, further in view of Nakayama as to claims 7, 8, 19, 23,              
          26, 28-31 and 35.  As to claims 11 and 16, the examiner relies              
          upon the combination of Tompkins and Laycock, with the                      
          addition of Nakayama as to claim 14.  Finally, the examiner                 
          rejects claim 33 under 35 USC § 103 as being obvious over the               




                                          2                                           





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

Last modified: November 3, 2007