Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 Rozmanith’s, would need significant I/O capability,” id., is unconvincing because it concerns the
2 obviousness of using a RISC-or CISC-microprocessor server to handle AV data of the type
3 disclosed in the ‘341 patent rather than to handle information of the type handled by Filepp’s file
4 server. The same criticism applies to Dr. Koopman’s remaining arguments at pages 4-15,
5 paragraphs 8-33. Dr. Koopman has therefore failed to give us any convincing reason why the
6 trend towards using UNIX servers having RISC or CISC microprocessors would been
7 considered to be inapplicable to Filepp’s interactive computer network, including file server 205.
8
9 For the foregoing reasons, we are affirming the rejection of claims 9, 10, and 14 for
10 obviousness over Filepp in view of “well known practices” as evidenced by The Electronics
11 Engineers' Handbook and the twenty-nine Gale articles.
12 (c) The rejection of claim 11 (two compression techniques42)
13 Of the five references apparently cited as disclosing the use of two video compression
14 techniques (i.e., De Maine, Carr, Giltner, Notenboom, and LeGall), one (namely, Giltner) is
15 specifically relied on in combination with Filepp in a separate rejection of claim 11, 3d Action at
16 83, para. 18; Final Action at 241, para. 18, and therefore will be addressed in our discussion of
17 that rejection. As for the remaining four references, the examiner's statement of the rejection
18 based on Filepp in view of "well known practices" fails to identify the specific reference
42 Claim 11 does not include UNIX, RISC, or CISC limitations.
- 41 -
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007