Appeal No. 2005-0129
Application No. 09/406,353
limitations set forth in independent claims 17 and 30. Claims 17 and 30 were rejected
by the Examiner as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ravi.
On pages 15-18 of the brief, appellant argues that the invention recited in
independent claim 17 represents multiple versions of the stored content which are
adapted to utilize the appropriate bandwidth. Unlike the claimed versions of stored
content, the Ravi reference discloses a client computer which is able to dynamically
select transmission rates to match the bandwidth capacity, but lacks any multiple
versions of stored content. (See brief at page 17.) Appellant concludes by stating that
claim 17 in the patent application teaches retrieving pre-stored content that is encoded
to accommodate various bandwidth levels. (See brief at page 18.)
With respect to independent claim 30, appellant argues that a VOD request is
answered by transmitting the stored content, which is pre-stored and encoded in a
manner adapted to utilize the appropriate bandwidth. (See brief at pages 19-20).
Appellant further argues that Ravi only discloses performance variables that are
computed to determine if it is desirable to increase or decrease bandwidth. If there is a
determination, the bandwidth is increased or decreased. The change in bandwidth
reflects the dynamic selection of transmission rates. Accordingly, appellant concludes
that the Ravi reference is silent with regard to stored content encoded in a manner
adapted to utilize the appropriate bandwidth.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007