Appeal 2007-0244
Application 09/777,500
argument is not persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of claims 9, 33,
and 45.
With respect to dependent claim 10, the Examiner additionally argues
in the Reply Brief at pages 7-8 that compressed data would not be
transmitted more quickly and in many cases would be transmitted more
slowly. We find no support for Appellants’ assertion and do not find the
unsupported argument persuasive.
Appellants additionally argue that the dependent claims grouped with
claim 10 incorporate additional limitations not taught by claims 9, 33, or 45
or by the cited references (Reply Br. 8). We find no relevance of a
comparison of dependent claims to the independent claims with respect to a
comparison of the prior art. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
persuasive.
Appellants argue that Appellants have been unable to locate that the
meta data contains the address of the media server and designating the media
servers as primary and secondary based upon communication network
criteria (Reply Br. 8). We find communications would implicitly involve
addresses, as discussed above with Chen and Jones, and additionally find
that Hazra would have addressed primary and secondary sources, discussed
in column 5. Additionally Chen discloses reduction of bottlenecks,
designation of at least one media server, and coordination of media server
(Chen, col. 1-2). Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive, and we
will sustain the rejection of claim 10 and those grouped therewith.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013