Appeal No. 2002-1162
Application No. 08/683,994
The Examiner relies on the following reference in rejecting
the claims:
Kostreski et al. (Kostreski) 5,635,979 Jun. 3, 1997
(filed May 27, 1994)
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Kostreski.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 16, mailed
November 21, 2000) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in
support of the rejection and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 15,
filed September 18, 2000) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The Examiner equates the claimed “position label” with the
“time stamp” of Kostreski which is derived from the MPEG data of
a “frozen frame” and is sent back to the server along with a
“pause” command (answer, page 4). Additionally, the Examiner
characterizes Kostreski’s “deriving” action (Col. 17, lines 63-
67) indicated by extracting the “time stamp” already present in
the data stream when the “pause” command is actuated as
resumption of the transmission signal (answer, page 4).
Appellants rely on the disclosure of Kostreski in Column 17,
lines 59-64 and argue that the time stamp disclosed in the prior
art is neither inserted into the signal at positions where the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007