Appeal No. 2003-0699 Page 5
Application No. 09/169,724
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"assigning an order transmission priority to each of the plurality of discrete frequency
components that determines the time order in which the plurality of discrete frequency
components are to be transmitted over the communications network. . . ." Independent
claims 16, 30, and 48 specify in pertinent part similar limitations. Giving the
independent claims their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require
assigning a priority to components of a video signal to specify the chronological order in
which the components are to be transmitted over a communications network.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the
teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the claimed subject matter
to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007