Appeal 2007-1743
Application 10/131,550
Moreover, both McDougall and Vaios both disclose distributing video
to multiple users (i.e., multicasting the video). Although we find that
McDougall itself suggests performing each of the recited functions at least
generally in the first software loop,11 executing these specific functions in
light of the teachings of Ueda and Baker would have likewise been obvious
to the skilled artisan to ensure efficient and timely execution of the video
distribution function.
For at least these reasons, Appellant has not persuasively rebutted the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness of representative claim 3 based
on the collective teachings of the references. We will therefore sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 and claims 9 and 15 which fall with claim 3.
DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejections with respect to all claims
on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 is
affirmed.
11 For example, McDougall’s teaching of initiating a conference in either the
“video follows audio” mode or the “continuous presence” mode would, at
least implicitly, suggest calling a feature equivalent to a “StartCapture”
feature, establishing multicast functionality of such video to the multiple
participants in the conference, creating a data “key” for respective
conference participants to receive video, and waiting for connection
requests. See generally McDougall, col. 2, ll. 34-col. 3, l. 53; col. 11, ll. 12-
37; Fig. 6A.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013