Appeal No. 2004-0130
Application No. 09/083,601
to what receives the request, and thus may refer at least to programming within video
control server 104 (Thro Fig. 1), which receives a request for video from a particular
video device, prior to the server determining how the available bandwidth is to be
allocated.
We thus sustain, for the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 19-38.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 19-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Thro is affirmed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007