Appeal No. 2006-2918
Application 09/844,919
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 13 despite the manner
in which the examiner has entered evidence into this case. The examiner
took Official Notice that it was conventional in the art to deliver video
content using a fiber optic network. Thus, the rejection was not on Allport
alone, as argued by appellant, but instead, was on Allport and Official
Notice. The citation of Hendricks was merely used to replace this Official
Notice with an actual reference. The fact that Allport itself does not suggest
the advantages of fiber optic data transmission does not make the rejection
based on hindsight. The advantages of fiber optic data transmission were
well known at the time this application was filed as evidenced by the
references cited. Appellant has failed to address the merits of the examiner’s
position as to why the invention of claim 13 would have been obvious in
view of the cited evidence.
With respect to claim 18, appellant argues that digitally compressing
electronic content into a digital video stream that is eventually inserted into
the vertical blanking interval is not taught in addition to rebroadcasting the
digital video stream using a wireless local area network [brief, page 9]. The
examiner responds by referring to the arguments with respect to claim 11
[answer, page 9].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 18 for the reasons
discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 11. Since claims 19, 20 and 22
are not separately argued, we also sustain the examiner’s rejection of these
claims.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007