Appeal No. 2003-0408
Application 09/019,965
The examiner responds that Tung teaches pausing the video
streaming action, capturing a still image, transferring the still
image to the remote site, and resuming video streaming all
performed as an atomic operation which is non-interruptible
[answer, pages 11-14].
Appellant responds that the images in Tung are sent
between computers over a computer network. Appellant argues that
there is an indeterminate amount of time required to send two
SNAPSHOT messages in the Tung computer network, and during this
time the computers will continue processing which could cause
interrupts within the computers to occur. Appellant asserts that
the processing in Tung is anything but atomic and non-
interruptible as claimed [reply brief].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 8 for essentially the reasons argued by
appellant in the briefs. Most importantly, we agree with
appellant that there is no teaching within the combination of
Tung and Nagasawa that the steps and operation of these claims
are performed as an atomic operation which is non-interruptible.
Appellant’s specification describes the atomic operation as
follows:
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007