Appeal No. 2004-0130
Application No. 09/083,601
bandwidth cannot support transmission of video data from the first video device when
additional video devices need some portion of the bandwidth. Thro conveys to the
artisan that in the case of two video devices as inputs, for example, any of four
parameters (video-1 frame rate and resolution; video-2 frame rate and resolution) may
be adjusted as necessary, and, conversely, that any of the four parameters may be
kept constant. We note, however, that instant claim 19 is silent with respect to whether
or not the frame rate may change when the image parameter is adjusted and the data
are transmitted.
Appellants also argue that the “truncation” of video signals described by Thro
(e.g., col. 6, l. 34 et seq.) does not teach or suggest “adjusting the image parameter” as
claimed. Even assuming that to be true, however, the “truncation” taught by Thro
merely represents an additional way of managing large amounts of video data from
multiple sources. That Thro might disclose or suggest additional embodiments that are
not within the scope of representative claim 19 does not persuade us of error in the
rejection.
Instant claim 25 is more specific than claim 19 in the aspect of decreasing
resolution, rather than “adjusting the image parameter.” However, the teachings of
Thro, as we have noted above, are as specific as claim 25 requires. The claim also
contains the additional step of “receiving a request for a first pixel resolution.” The initial
resolution associated with the default, relatively high resolution of a video device in Thro
corresponds to the claimed “first pixel resolution.” Claim 25 is not specific with respect
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007