Appeal No. 1998-0498
Application No. 08/541,471
5 of the brief, appellants do not appear to contend that it
would not have been proper within 35 USC § 103 to have
combined the teachings and showings of Tompkins and Laycock.
The focus of appellants' arguments thereafter in the brief is
upon the teachings and showings of Hosono such as to modify
the Tompkins-Laycock combination. We agree with appellants'
basic urging that it would not have been obvious to the
artisan to have utilized the teachings of Hosono in the
Tompkins-Laycock combination to reject the subject matter of
independent claims 3, 17 and 26.
It appears uncontested that Laycock teaches in the prior
art grouping video and audio signals before transmission on a
single wire or medium. The examiner attempts to rely upon the
further teachings of Hosono as to the obviousness of utilizing
an interleaver to further modify the grouping of audio and
video signals as thought by Laycock into respective audio and
video frames of information to meet the feature recited in
representative independent claim 3 on appeal of "interleaving
the video and auto frames on a sequential one-to-one basis
before transmission." Similar features are attempted to be
recited in independent claims 17 and 26 on appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007