Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 Also, the examiner's reliance on Punj is improper because it is not cited in the statement
2 of the rejection. MPEP § 706.02(j); Hoch, 428 F.2d at 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ at 407 n.3. In any
3 event, Punj does not avoid the above-noted problem with combining the teachings of Cohen and
4 Sugiyama.
5 The rejection of claim 93 for obviousness over Cohen in view of Sugiyama is reversed,
6 as is the rejection over those references of dependent claims 94, 96, and 97.
7 (2) Claims 93, 94, 96, and 97 – obvious over Cohen in view of Bridges and Punj?
8 Bridges discloses transmitting differentially compressed videophone data in order to
9 provide real-time videophone display. The examiner's proposed modification of Cohen in view
10 of Bridges and Punj (which is cited in the statement of the rejection), 3d Action at 92, para. 28;
11 Final Action at 248, para. 29, therefore fails for the same reasons as the proposed modification of
12 Cohen in view of Sugiyama and Punj. The rejection of claims 93, 94, 96, and 97 for obviousness
13 over Cohen in view of Bridges and Punj is therefore reversed.
14 U. Summary
15 1. 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection
16 The § 112, first paragraph, enablement requirement rejection of claim 94 and 97 has
17 been reversed as to both claims. The art rejections have been decided as follows:
18 2. Rejections based on Filepp
19 (a) The § 103(a) rejection of claims 9-11 and 14 for obviousness
20 over Filepp in view of known practices, as evidenced by The Electronics
21 Engineers' Handbook, the Gale articles, De Maine, Carr, Giltner,
22 Notenboom, and LeGall, is affirmed as to claims 9, 10, and 14 and
23 reversed as to claim 11.
- 90 -
Page: Previous 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007