Appeal No. 2004-0130
Application No. 09/083,601
operation,” when a fixed transmission frame rate (e.g., 20 frames per second) is of a
higher priority than resolution per frame. Col. 5, ll. 4-19.
Appellants submit that Thro fails to teach or suggest, as recited in instant claim
19, determining whether it is possible to transmit data that is associated with a
requested image parameter at a requested frame rate, and, if not, adjusting the image
parameter and transmitting the data. That, however, is what Thro teaches to one
skilled in this art.
Thro notes that transmission frame rate and resolution per frame are inversely
related (e.g., col. 6, ll. 31-32). Thro also provides numerical examples of the tradeoff
(e.g., col. 11, ll. 16-45). Thro’s disclosure conveys to the artisan that when, for
example, video control server 104 determines that the communications bandwidth
cannot support the default (relatively high) frame rate in combination with the default
(relatively high) resolution of a particular video device, the system lowers the resolution
to support a desired frame rate. The “first mode” of operation sets the desired frame
rate; the system may lower, accordingly, the resolution per frame to remain within the
fixed bandwidth of the communication resources. The reference provides particular
examples (Fig. 4; col. 10, l. 32 - col. 11, l. 45) of a communication device allocating the
bandwidth shared by multiple video devices, by setting frame rate and resolution of
each video device, to remain within the fixed bandwidth of the communication device.
The communication device may thus adjust (e.g., reduce) an image parameter (e.g.,
resolution) of a first video device if the communication device determines that the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007