Appeal No. 2005-0129
Application No. 09/406,353
The Examiner’s response only addresses Ravi’s ability to utilize different
bandwidths, but does not address pre-stored content. Regarding claims 17 and 30,
Examiner states “Ravi . . .discloses the claimed ‘video on demand Distribution System’
. . . comprising of ‘provider equipment for providing VOD,’ . . . and the claimed
‘subscriber equipment requesting the VOD content via a back channel’ . . . and forward
and backward channel.” (See Examiner’s Answer at page 4.) Examiner finds the
disclosure in Ravi of its dynamic adjustment of the transmission rate of the VOD to
optimize the usage of the bandwidth as equivalent to the step of determining whether
the VOD distribution has sufficient bandwidth available to provide the VOD content to a
subscriber and providing in the event of appropriate bandwidth ability, the requested
VOD content to a subscriber using content encoded in a manner adapted to utilize the
appropriate bandwidth, and providing VOD content to a subscriber in the event of
minimum bandwidth availability using content encoded in a manner adapted to utilize
minimum bandwidth. (See Examiner’s Answer at page 4.) We disagree with the
examiner.
Here, we agree with appellant’s assessment of the examiner’s application of the
prior art to the claimed invention and agree with appellant that VOD’s ability to adapt by
using different transmission rates for bandwidth does not teach or fairly suggest pre-
stored content for different bandwidths. Therefore, the Ravi patent does not teach or
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007