Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550
For the foregoing reasons, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1 and claims 2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 which fall with
claim 1.
Claims 3, 9, and 15
We now consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 9, and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McDougall in view of Vaios,
Baker, and further in view of Ueda. Regarding representative claim 3,9 the
Examiner’s rejection essentially finds that the prior art discloses every
claimed feature except for the six recited functions of the first software loop,
but cites two references to show that such features would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Specifically, the Examiner cites Baker as teaching four of the recited
functions: (1) calling a “StartCapture” feature to capture video frames; (2)
creating a Multicast session object; (3) creating a data key for receiving
video; and (4) establishing a multicast session for transmitting secure
multicast video. The Examiner adds that Ueda teaches the other two recited
functions, namely (1) starting network services, and (2) waiting for
connection requests. The Examiner concludes that the skilled artisan would
have combined these teachings with McDougall and Vaios to, among other
things, improve security (Answer 8-9, 16).
9 Appellant argues claims 3, 9, and 15 together as a group. See Br. 19-21.
Accordingly, we select claim 3 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013