Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 Claim 104 repeats the preamble and steps (a) to (d) of claim 93 and in step (e) specifies
2 that the remote query and data retrieval means further comprises “a removable bulk storage
3 device containing data that is accessed and displayed based on said compressed or non-
4 compressed response to said query." The examiner reads this limitation on column 18, lines 4-
5 23. 3d Action at 100, para. 39; Final Action at 154, para. 38. In response to Dr. Koopman's
6 criticism that the cited lines make no mention of storage, removable or otherwise, 2d Koopman
7 Decl. at 192, para. 421, the examiner shifted his reliance to column 16, lines 15-22, Final Action
8 at 223, para. 421, which explain that the program and commercial recorders can be implemented
9 as video tape recorders. We agree with the examiner that the buffers thus implemented satisfy
10 the claim language and are accordingly affirming the rejection of claim 104 for anticipation by
11 Baji.
12 (2) Claims 94 and 97 – obvious over Baji in view of Catros?
13 Dependent claim 94 calls for differential compression of an image following receipt of
14 the query, as does claim 97, which additionally specifies through its dependence on claim 96 that
15 the response represents an animated sequence. 53 As is apparent from Figure 1-1 of Baji, the
16 motion picture data are subjected to bandwidth compression by image encoder 107 (col. 1, ll. 40-
17 44; col. 4, ll. 19-34) after being read out of data base 102 in response to a query. However, Baji
18 does not describe the type of compression performed by encoder 107. Catros, as already noted,
19 discloses differential compression of television video signals. We agree with the examiner that it
20 would have been obvious to implement Baji's image encoder 107 so as to perform Catros's
- 85 -
Page: Previous 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007