Appeal No. 2000-1643
Application No. 08/897,900
specific parameters of the broadcasted segments in Yarbrough [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellant argues that the examiner’s rejection does not address the last step of
claim 22. Specifically, appellant argues that the cited references do not teach or
suggest the transmission of one fragment of each segment during each predetermined
time interval. Appellant also argues that Yarbrough and Gimple cannot be combined
because the packetized transmission protocol of Gimple is irrelevant to the program
segments of Yarbrough. Appellant also notes that there is no explicit or implicit
suggestion within the references that they could be combined. Appellant argues that
the motivation to combine provided by the examiner is not suggested anywhere within
the cited references [brief, pages 4-8].
The examiner responds that the step of transmitting one fragment of each
segment during each time interval is “inherent to the claimed invention” [answer, page
5]. The examiner also notes that Yarbrough and Gimple both relate to program
distribution systems so that they are properly combinable. Finally, the examiner
responds that his motivation to combine is supported by Yarbrough [id., pages 6-7].
Appellant responds that the examiner has still not cited any art which teaches
transmitting one fragment of each segment during each time interval. Appellant argues
that there is nothing in Yarbrough to suggest dividing the program into individual
fragments that can be transmitted nonsequentially, resulting in noncontiguous
transmission of the program. Appellant also responds that the fact that Yarbrough and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007