Appeal 2006-3143
Application 09/897,383
INTRODUCTION
The claims are directed to managing and transmitting image data.
Specifically, the initial part of an image file is read at a client and parsed to
identify any needed additional parts to render a selection of the image file.
The requisite additional parts are then requested from the server. The client
then displays the selection of the image file. Such a system enables scalable
streaming of images with client-side control. Claim 25 is illustrative:
25. A method for customized image display, said method comprising
the acts of:
reading an initial part of an image file at a client, said file being
hosted on a server;
parsing said initial part to identify any additional parts that may be
needed to render a selection of said image file;
requesting said additional parts from said server when said additional
parts are needed;
displaying said selection of said image file at said client.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Guedalia US 6,356,283 B1 Mar. 12, 2002
(filed Jun. 10, 1998)
Appellants’ admitted prior art on pages 2-4 of the Specification (“APA”).
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 25-29, 33-38, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Guedalia.
2. Claims 30-32, 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Guedalia in view of APA.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013