Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550
Appellant argues that neither Baker nor Ueda -- references which
pertain to television video-on-demand system -- show the limitations of
representative claim 3 (Br. 19-20). Nor would it be obvious, Appellant
contends, to combine the four references since they are from different
technologies (i.e., video-on-demand, video conferencing, and remotely-
accessible monitoring systems) (Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 7-8).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 3.
First, regarding the alleged failure of Baker or Ueda to disclose the claimed
limitations, Appellant has simply not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s
findings in this regard. As we indicated previously, mere conclusory
assertions that the references fail to disclose enumerated limitations without
specific supporting analysis of why the references fail in this regard does not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness relying
on such teachings.10
Secondly, we find that the skilled artisan would have ample reason on
this record to combine the respective teachings of Baker and Ueda with the
other references. In short, Baker and Ueda constitute analogous art. Both
references pertain to distributing video over a network -- a field of endeavor
that is commensurate not only with the claimed invention, but also
McDougall and Vaios. Moreover, such technologies that distribute video
over a network would have been reasonably pertinent to problems
encountered in network-based video surveillance systems such as the
claimed invention.
10 See P. 10, supra, of this opinion.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013