Appeal No. 2003-0663
Application No. 09/072,549
Appellants point out that Verhoeckx lacks any communications
control component at all and there is “no computer networking
aspect to Verhoeckx whatsoever” (principal brief-page 7). The
examiner offers no reasonable rebuttal to this argument.
Additionally, appellants point out that Verhoeckx’s modified
synchronization signals within the video signal are in no way
equivalent to the digital control signals from communication
control components of the claimed invention recited in claims 1
and 21 and their dependencies. But, the examiner has no
reasonable answer to these differentiations by appellants.
Since there are so many missing claimed elements from
Verhoeckx, together with unconvincing rationales by the examiner,
we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed subject matter.
But, to whatever extent there may have been a prima facie case,
we find that appellants have overcome the case with arguments
that are not convincingly rebutted by the examiner.
We also will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 8-15,
17-25 and 27-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Verhoeckx in
combination with either Tompkins and/or Ramanathan and/or Rangan
and/or Stefik since none of the latter references provides for
the deficiencies of Verhoeckx.
-10–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007