Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 Claim 99, which depends on claim 93, adds that "said compressed or non-compressed
2 response comprises audio data in digital format and wherein said displaying step comprise
3 audible playback of said audio data." We are of the opinion that a person skilled in the art
4 would have understood that Baji's compressed, digital motion picture signals would inherently
5 contain digital audio that is audibly reproduced by television monitor 114, which is similar to the
6 position taken by the examiner in arguing that claim 99 is anticipated by Walter. Final Action at
7 214, para. 395; Answer at 204, para. 395. Inasmuch as anticipation is epitome of obviousness, In
8 re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1385, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1466-67 (Fed. Cir. 2002), we are
9 affirming the rejection of claim 99 for obviousness over Baji in view of McCalley.
10 Alternatively, we are affirming on the ground that transmitting Baji’s audio information
11 in digital form would have been obvious from column 2, lines 29-32 of McCalley, as asserted by
12 the examiner. 3d Action at 108, para. 50; Final Action at 260-61, para. 49. Dr. Koopman's
13 argument that the cited passage in McCalley in non-enabling (2d Koopman Decl. at 199, para.
14 441) is unconvincing for the reasons given above in the discussion of the rejection of claim 99
15 over Pocock in view of McCalley.
16 (5) Claim 103 – obvious over Baji in view of Kirchner?
17 The rejection of claim 103 ("mobile") for obviousness over Baji in view of Kirchner is
18 affirmed for reasons like the those given above in affirming the rejection of this claim over
19 Walter in view of Kirchner.
20
21 (6) Claim 103 – obvious over Baji in view of Dr. Koopman's testimony?
- 87 -
Page: Previous 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007