Appeal No. 2006-0362
Application No. 09/455,201
the references identify the special problems of Internet
streaming video or indicate that Internet streaming video should
be treated differently from Web page data. Therefore even if the
cited references were combined, the resulting system would not
treat Internet streaming video and Web page data differently as
in the method and apparatus of claims 1, 6, 10, 14, 19 and 23."
Appellants add (id.) that “[s]pecifically, the combination of
the references would not result in the headend method and
apparatus of claims, 1, 6, 14 and 19 where a 'World Wide Web page
contains a given URL corresponding to streaming video' and both
the Web page and the streaming video are treated differently."
From our review of the record, we find, for the reasons
which follow, that the combined teachings of Hodge and Dureau
fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 1,
2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23 and 24.
As shown by Hodge in figure 4, data 107 in Ethernet data
frame 101 is mapped into payload 130 of MPEG bit stream frame 121
(page 2, paragraph 22 and page 4, paragraph 32). It is disclosed
(page 4, para 31) that the payload section 130 is copied from the
data section 107 of the Ethernet frame. As shown in figure 5
Παγε 8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007