Appeal No. 2004-2228
Application No. 09/652,002
the Reply Brief (Paper No. 14) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which
stand rejected.
Claims 1-6, 8, 17-22, and 28-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Salvati.
Claims 9, 10, 13-16, and 23-27 were rejected over prior art in the Final Rejection.
However, appellant presented an amendment after final (which the examiner did not
enter) proposing to cancel the claims. Since appellant has not contested the rejections
against those claims in this appeal, the appeal as to claims 9, 10, 13-16, and 23-27
stands dismissed.
Claims 7, 11, and 12 have been canceled.
OPINION
Appellant relies on the limitations of independent claims 1, 17, and 28 as
distinguishing over Salvati. In particular, appellant submits (e.g., Reply Brief at 3) that
Salvati does not teach or suggest transmitting media data via a digital mobile network
(claims 1 and 17) or a wireless communication link (claim 28) in real time as the data is
generated.
With respect to claim 1, the rejection refers to column 13, lines 10 through 15 and
column 19, lines 62 through 65 of Salvati for disclosure of the argued missing feature.
(Answer at 3-4.) The examiner reiterates, at page 11 of the Answer, that the reference
discloses at column 13 that instrument 180 (Fig. 9) may allow direct connection to the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007