Appeal No. 2003-0664
Application No. 09/314,716
taught by Lai, in order to present simultaneously multiple video
images in a pre-selected pattern of multiple video windows as
suggested by Lai (Col. 1, lines 59-65).”
Appellants argue (reply brief, pages 2 and 3) that the
examiner has used improper hindsight to pick and choose teachings
from the references to arrive at the claimed invention, and that
“[t]he prior art does not disclose the claimed combination of a:
(1) ‘network operation center creating a national program feed
and information components,’ to generate (2) ‘broadcast quality
multi-window screen display’ created by (3) ‘a graphical user
interface . . . at the network operation center’ for (4)
‘controlling through the digital streaming media the assembly of
the multi-window screen display.’”
With the exception of argument (1), we agree with all of the
appellants’ arguments. We find that the transmitter 100 in Birch
is “a network operation center creating a national program feed
and information components.” Appellants correctly argue (reply
brief, pages 3 through 5) that the applied references lack a GUI
at the network operation center (i.e., the transmitter) to create
a digital streaming media, and then to control how that digital
streaming media is assembled in a multi-window screen display at
the receiving remote node. As indicated supra, the examiner
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007