Appeal No. 2006-2918
Application 09/844,919
With respect to claim 21, appellant argues that since digitally
compressing the digital video stream is not taught or suggested by Allport,
then digitally decompressing the signal is also not taught or suggested [brief,
page 10]. The examiner responds that Hendricks was cited to teach
compressing and decompressing of video content [answer, page 10].
Appellant responds that there is no teaching of decompression in Allport.
Appellant also asserts that since there is no local area network in Allport,
there is no need for compression or decompression. Appellant also points
out that the rejection is deficient because the examiner now relies on the
additional reference to Hendricks [reply brief, pages 4-5].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 21. Each of
appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 21 has been considered with
respect to one or more claims above. Therefore, appellant’s arguments fail
to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 21 for reasons discussed
above.
In summary, we have sustained each of the examiner’s rejections of the
claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims
1-22 is affirmed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007