Ex Parte 5253341 et al - Page 57




               Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742                                                                                   
               Patent 5,253,341                                                                                                       

          1            The§ 112 rejection is based on testimony by Dr. Koopman concerning a Bridges article                           
          2    that is cited in the '341 patent for its disclosure of differential compression and is also relied on                  
          3    by the examiner in a § 103(a) rejection of claims 94 and 97 (i.e., for obviousness over Cohen in                       
          4    view of Bridges and Punj).  2d Action at 21, para. 43; 3d Action at 92, para. 28; Final Action at                      
          5    248, para. 28. The pertinent part of the '341 patent reads:                                                            
          6                    Furthermore, in order to accommodate efficient compression and                                         
          7            decompression of animated sequences (as in feature film video), a                                              
          8            technique of Differential (DFF) Image Compression (DIC), as described                                          
          9            in an article by John Bridges in Dr. Dobb's Journal #173 February 1991,                                        
         10            page 38, et seq may utilized as part of the decompression module.                                              
         11                                                                                                                           
         12    '341 patent, col. 7, ll. 34-40.48  The '341 patent explains that Bridge's differential compression                     
         13    techniques can be used for communications over a high band-width channel (e.g., CATV), col. 7,                         
         14    l. 53 to col. 8, l. 12, or over a standard DDS telephone line.  Id. at col. 8, ll. 13-23.                              
         15            Cohen (described in more detail below in the discussion of the rejection) discloses a                          
         16    system which employs telephone lines or a fiber optic cable network to send movies from a                              
         17    central location to a subscriber site.  Cohen, col. 4, ll. 41-46; claims 2 and 3.  The § 103(a)                        
         18    rejection characterizes Bridges as "disclos[ing] a system for compressing upon transmission to                         
         19    allow for realtime display of the transmitted video."  2d Action at 22, para. 46; 3d Action at 93,                     
         20    para. 31; Final Action at 248, para. 31.  In his first declaration, Dr. Koopman disagreed with the                     
         21                                                                                                                           
         22    examiner’s characterization of Bridges for the following reasons, which the examiner now cites                         
         23    as the basis for the § 112 non-enablement rejection:                                                                   
                                                                                                                                     
                       48   The page numbers of the copy of Bridges that is of record run from 1 to 13.                               
                                                            - 57 -                                                                    





Page:  Previous  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007