Appeal 2007-0035
Application 09/924,036
the source because it does not perform the "content processing center"
function of "processing the received media to generate a streaming media
presentation." Lumley does not cure the deficiency of Burns with respect to
this missing function. Accordingly, the rejection does not establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claim 1 is reversed.
Omoigui, which is applied to the rejection of claim 2, does not cure
the deficiency of the rejection over Burns and Lumley. The rejection of
claim 2 is reversed.
Claims 3-5
The Examiner finds that Burns discloses the invention of claim 3
except for converting the dynamic HTML pages into a static HTML page
(Final Rejection 11). The Examiner finds that, in analogous art, Nagai
discloses at column 6, lines 39-43, and column 7, lines 50-52, converting a
dynamic HTML page into a static HTML page for the benefit of generating
a static digest/summary of a multimedia from a plurality of media data
(Final Rejection 11-12). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Burns to include converting the dynamic HTML page
into a static HTML page, as taught by Nagai, for Nagai's disclosed benefit of
such a conversion (Final Rejection 12).
Appellants argue (Br. 12) that column 6, lines 39-43, and column 7,
lines 50-52, of Nagai, do not teach, suggest, or imply converting the
dynamic HTML page into a static HTML page as required by the steps of
"processing," "encoding," "converting," "integrating," and "transmitting." It
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013