Appeal No. 2000-1643
Application No. 08/897,900
to the users’ receivers.
Representative claim 22 is reproduced as follows:
22. A method of transmitting a program to multiple users over a distribution
system comprising:
providing a program divided into a plurality of segments wherein at least
some of the segments are divided into a plurality of fragments; and
during each predetermined time interval transmitting one fragment of each
segment to users’ receivers.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Dancis et al. (Dancis) 3,731,282 May 1, 1973
Gimple et al. (Gimple) 4,430,731 Feb. 7, 1984
Yarbrough et al. (Yarbrough) 4,598,288 Jul. 1, 1986
Claims 22 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness the examiner offers Yarbrough in view of Gimple with respect to claim 22,
and the examiner adds Dancis to this combination with respect to claim 30.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the examiner, we make
reference to the briefs and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections
advanced by the examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the
examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007