Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 (input/output) limitations of UNIX servers having RISC- or CISC-based microprocessor have
2 prevented them from keeping up with the increase in workstation demand (col. 2, ll. 9-16).
3 2d Koopman Decl. at 170, para. 359. As a result, according to Dr. Koopman, the servers would
4 not have been understood to be capable of providing the "high quality compression" disclosed in
5 appellant's '341 patent. Id. This argument is unconvincing because it fails to address the
6 rationale of the rejection, which does not require compression of the type of AV data disclosed
7 by appellant, let alone in the manner disclosed by appellant. Instead, the rejection requires that
8 the server be capable only of compressing the type of data disclosed in Filepp and in the manner
9 disclosed by Filepp.
10 For the foregoing reasons, we are affirming the § 103(a) rejection of claim 9 ("said
11 remote host utilizes a RISC based processor and a UNIX based operating system") and claim 10
12 ("said remote host utilizes a CISC based processor and a UNIX based operating system") for
13 obviousness over Filepp in view of Row.
14 Claim 14 differs from claims 9 and 10 by specifying that "said remote server resides on a
15 compatible network in which CISC and RISC based processors operating with a UNIX based
16 operating system communicate in a windowing environment." This language does not require a
17 windowing environment at the server; it is broad enough to read on a windowing environment at
18 the client. Regarding the UNIX, RISC, and CISC limitations, Dr. Koopman repeats (2d
19 Koopman Decl. at 170, para. 360) the same unconvincing arguments he made with respect to
20 clams 9 and 10, thereby leaving only the "windowing environment" limitation for our
application extendibility and portability."
- 44 -
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007