Appeal No. 2000-1643
Application No. 08/897,900
not sustain the rejection of claim 22.
With respect to claim 30, appellant argues that Dancis does not teach the
claimed relationship between the predetermined time interval during which one
fragment from each of a plurality of segments is transmitted and the playback interval of
a segment [brief, pages 8-9]. The examiner responds that the playback time interval in
Dancis is monostable [answer, page 7]. Appellant responds that this assertion, even if
true, is irrelevant to the claimed invention [reply brief].
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 30 for the reasons asserted
by appellant in the briefs. We also note that Dancis does not overcome the deficiencies
in the basic combination of Yarbrough and Gimple which were discussed above.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the examiner’s rejections of the
claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 22 and 30 is
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007