Appeal 2007-1807
Application 09/751,037
B. Claims 8, 17, 25, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Herve and Agazzi.
Appellants contend that Herve does not anticipate the invention as
recited in claims 1 through 7, 9 through 16, 18 through 24, and 26 through
37. Particularly, Appellants contend that Herve does not teach or suggest a
decoder portion that directs an encoder portion to direct an encoder to
encode data in a custom mode in response to a decoder sensing data received
in the custom mode, as recited in independent claims 1, 9, 18, and 26. (Br.7,
Reply Br. 2.) For these same reasons, Appellants contend that the
combination of Herve and Agazzi does not render claims 8, 17, 25, and 38
unpatentable. In response, the Examiner contends that Herve’s disclosure of
a management system that uses a switch to inform a CODEC of the selected
mode of operation of a visiophone teaches the claim limitation. (Answer 12-
15.)
ISSUE
The pivotal issue in the appeal before us is as follows:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner failed to establish that the
disclosure of Herve anticipates the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b)? Particularly, does Herve’s disclosure anticipate the claimed
invention given that Herve teaches a management system to instruct a
CODEC via a switch of the selected mode of operation of a
visiophone?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013