Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550
initialization as claimed, but also provides subsequent software loops that
perform “single user control functions.”
As Figure 30 illustrates, six different host machine event handling
functions follow the first “Event” loop.5 Significantly, all of these functions
loop back to the “Event” decision box upon completion. Thus, each host
machine event handling function, in effect, comprises a distinct loop
subsequent to the first “Event” loop. Moreover, each subsequent loop, at
least in part, performs “single user control functions” since a single user
(i.e., the control participant) ultimately controls the video conference and,
likewise, the functionality of the host machine.
Thus, we find that McDougall alone amply discloses all limitations of
representative claim 1. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuasively
rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case obviousness based on the
collective teachings of the cited references for that reason alone.6
Nevertheless, we find the Examiner’s reliance on the teachings of
Vaios reasonable and readily combinable with McDougall. First, Vaios
generally teaches that multiple users can use a network to communicate with
a computer 12 and camera 10 connected thereto that is located in a security
surveillance area (Vaios, abstract; col. 3, ll. 14-36; Fig. 1). Moreover, each
5 These host machine functions include handling of (1) timer events (Fig.
36); (2) command events; (3) CODEC messages (Fig. 34); (4) CODEC
connection events (Fig. 35); (5) control system message events (Figs. 31-
33); and (6) control system connection events (Fig. 37). See McDougall,
col. 19, ll. 8-33.
6 See In re Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026, 1031, 202 USPQ 175, 179 (CCPA 1979)
(noting that obviousness rejections can be based on references that happen to
anticipate the claimed subject matter).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013