Appeal No. 2003-0699 Page 4
Application No. 09/169,724
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. Admitting "that Chujoh fails to
particularly disclose assigning an order transmission priority to each of discrete
frequency components, and assigning a transmission time order priority to each of the
discrete digitally represented frequency components," (Examiner's Answer at 5), the
examiner "submit[s] that Lane clearly teaches the priority levels that are assigned to the
frequency components before or after data transmission (col. 25, lines 33-57); where if
the priority is implemented before data transmission so the order transmission is
determined based upon the assigned priority of the video frames." (Id. at 10.) The
appellants argue, "the priority system utilized by Lane does not determine the
transmission order of any video data or component thereof. Rather, it is used to
determine what is, and what is not, to be placed in the trick play segments." (Appeal
Br. at 8.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007