Appeal No. 2004-2185
Application 08/855,245
appeal, claims 1-23. Since the argued features of each
independent claim 1, 10, 21, 22 and 23 appear to correspond
to each other among these independent claims, we take as
representative for our consideration independent claim 1 on
appeal. The features of dependent claims 2-9 correspond in
substance to the features recited in dependent claims 11-19.
No arguments presented as to dependent claim 20.
Appellant's basic argument is that neither reference relied
upon by the examiner nor their combination teaches or suggests
the aspect of right-sizing multimedia data by causing selection
of at least a subset of a set of enhancement layers to be
streamed to a multicast group as a function of feedback received
from a client within this group. It is recognized that Bolot
does not refer to the user enhancement layers but merely
discloses the action of adjusting an output data stream,
principally its data rate, in response to client feedback.
It is further urged by appellant that right-sizing in Chaddha
occurs on the client side unlike the present application where
the right-sizing is performed on the server side.
We do not agree with any of these assertions from our study
in detail of Chaddha, even though the bulk of the arguments
presented as to all claims on appeal in some manner focuses upon
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007