Appeal No. 2004-0130
Application No. 09/083,601
OPINION
Appellants nominally group the claims into four different groups. However,
appellants rely on the same arguments for all the claims. We find there are two groups
of claims that are substantially different in scope. We select claims 19 and 25 as
representative. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). See also In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379,
1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“If the brief fails to meet either
requirement [of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)], the Board is free to select a single claim from
each group of claims subject to a common ground of rejection as representative of all
claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that rejection based solely on the
selected representative claim.”).
The Thro reference describes mobile communication devices 101-103 (Fig. 1)
coupled to video devices 116-119. Col. 3, ll. 1-16. Thro recognizes that the
communication links are typically limited in bandwidth. In view of the fixed amount of
information that can be transferred each second, mobile communication device 101
may determine a priority between transmission frame rate and resolution per video
frame so as to choose between more frequent image updates and greater resolution
per frame. Col. 3, l. 66 - col. 4, l. 23. Alternatively, the user of the mobile
communication device may manually select the priority between transmission frame
rate and resolution per frame (col. 4, ll. 36-41); further, dispatcher 105 or video control
server 104 may determine the priority (id. at ll. 52-59). Thro refers to the “first mode of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007