Appeal No. 1996-3273
Application 08/127,932
The examiner’s rejection points to the prior art
discussed in appellants’ specification at page 4, lines 5-14.
This admitted prior art discusses the technique of “pacing” to
control the transmission of data. Appellants’ specification
notes that sophisticated pacing techniques are available for
the transmission of non-multimedia data, but that no pacing
techniques exist for the transmission of multimedia data.
Despite this express statement in the specification, the
examiner finds that it would have been obvious to apply the
known prior art pacing techniques used for non-multimedia data
to multimedia data since there is no difference in such data
which is apparent to the transmission system [answer, page 5].
Appellants argue that the pacing techniques referred to
in the specification do not teach or suggest the claimed
technique of transmitting multimedia data and non-multimedia
data based on both the determined availability of the
transmission queue of the sending station and the multimedia
pacing requests as set forth in each of the appealed claims
[brief, pages 9-10].
We again agree with appellants. The admitted prior art
of appellants’ specification in no way suggests that a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007