Appeal No. 2003-0699 Page 7
Application No. 09/169,724
We find no teaching or suggestion that Lane's utility-based prioritization scheme
determines the chronological order in which the reference transmits video data to a
receiver. To the contrary, Figure 9 of the reference "illustrate[s] a circuit for a digital
VTR compatible television receiver 200, capable of supporting VTR trick play
operation. . . ." Col. 31, ll. 14-16. The television receiver includes "a
demultiplexer 210, a video transport depacketizer 212 and a priority decoder module
214." Col. 32, ll. 41-42. "One function of the priority decoder 214 is to restore the
correct order to the codewords after they are removed from the transport data packets
so that they can be decoded by the video decoder module 216. This reordering is
possible using stored information contained within the priority decoder 214 on the legal
order for different priority codewords." Id. at ll. 48-54. "Lane doesn't say precisely what
order they are put in at this stage, but the very fact that they are processed upon receipt
to put them in a certain order means that they were not sent in the that [sic] order."
(Reply Br. at 4 (emphasis and footnote omitted)). "It . . . appears unlikely that
the new order precisely follows the priorities (i.e. priority 1 components come first,
followed by priority 2 components, etc.), [because] such would require only the priorities
themselves, and would not also require the use of 'stored information . . . on the legal
order for different priority codewords' as required in Lane. Col. 32, lines 51-54." (Id at
n.1.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007