Appeal No. 2003-2038
Application 09/288,833
in independent claims 1 and 11. Specifically, Appellants argue
that Adams and Cellario fail to teach or suggest “processing two
or more sequences of data packets . . . , each of said sequence
of data packets representing a common program source” as required
by claims 1 and 11. Appellants further argue that the combina-
tion of Adams and Cellario fails to teach or suggest “buffering
data packets comprised in a second one of said sequences in a
second receive buffer having a second buffering delay, wherein
said second buffer delay is smaller than said first buffering
delay,” as recited in Appellants’ claim 1. Appellants further
argue that the combination of Adams and Cellario fails to teach
or suggest “a second receive buffer having a second buffering
delay for buffering data packets comprised in a second one of
said sequences, wherein said second buffering delay is smaller
than said first buffering delay” as recited in Appellants’
claim 11. See pages 8 through 10 of Appellants’ brief.
In response, the Examiner argues that the combination
of Adams and Cellario teaches buffering data packets comprising a
second one of said sequences in a second receive buffer having a
second buffering delay, wherein said second buffering delay is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007