Appeal No. 2006-0362
Application No. 09/455,201
We are not persuaded by the examiner’s assertion (answer,
pages 13 and 14) that Dureau teaches treating the wide-band
(video) and the narrow-band Internet data (text) differently.
The examiner is correct in that in the embodiment of figure 3,
the wide-band and narrow-band data are routed differently.
However, both the wide-band and narrow-band data are encoded and
rendered into MPEG by encoder 130 and renderer 140, before
separate routing to the decoder 45. Thus, although Dureau
teaches routing the Internet data differently, Dureau does not
teach or suggest encoding the different types Internet data
differently. From all of the above, we find that the examiner
is picking and choosing parts of the prior art in an attempt to
arrive at the claimed invention, in the absence of any teaching
or suggestion that would have led an artisan to the claimed
invention. Accordingly, we find that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed
invention. The examiner fails to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14,
15, 19, 20, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Hodge in view of Dureau is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 3, 4, 8, 12, 16,
17, 21 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
Παγε 14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007