Appeal 2007-0035
Application 09/924,036
streaming media presentation stored on the cache server and displaying the
streaming media presentation."
Thus, the two limitations in question are the "source of media content"
and the "content processing center." The Examiner finds that "Burns fails to
specifically disclose a particular source for the media content" (Final
Rejection 9) and thus does not disclose a "source of media content." The
Examiner finds that the content server 52 in Burns is a "content processing
center . . . for processing the received media content" because "the retrieval
and transmission of content to the cache server requires the content to be
processed" (Answer 9). The Examiner finds that:
column 6, lines 1-7 in Burns inherently discloses generating a
streaming media presentation comprising integrated static HTML
pages by disclosing that the content server multicasts HTML pages
(HTML by itself is static unless otherwise stated as dynamic HTML,
which is an interactive web site created by using a combination of
static HTML and other key components).
(Answer 9).
Appellants argue (Br. 7-8; Br. 8-9) that content server 52, which the
Examiner relies on to be the "content processing center," does not perform
the claimed function "to generate a streaming media presentation comprising
integrated static HTML pages and encoded video, audio and metadata." It is
argued that the Examiner errs in finding that the content server 52 inherently
generates HTML pages (Br. 7).
The issue is whether the Examiner is correct in interpreting "for
processing the received media content to generate a streaming media
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013