Appeal No. 2002-1375
Application No. 09/353,948
corresponding to said one or more participants in response to said changes in position
as required by the language of independent claim 1. (See brief at page 8 et seq. and
reply at page 2 et seq.) The examiner maintains that columns 6-7 of Nitta teach the
use of reflective dots which would provide position information. While these reflective
dots may provide position information, the examiner has not identified how this position
information would necessarily be used, as required by 35 USC § 102, in animating
one or more linear frame representations corresponding to said one or more
participants in response to said changes in position as required by the language of
independent claim 1.1 Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of anticipation, and we cannot sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-10. Independent claims 11 and 21 contain similar
limitations which the examiner has not shown are taught by Nitta. Therefore, we find
that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation, and we
cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 11 and 21 and their dependent
claims 12-20 and 22-30.
1 With this said, we make no findings with respect to the obviousness of the use of linear frame
representations or other reduced data formats in image transmission in view of the teachings of Nitta.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007