Appeal 2007-1807
Application 09/751,037
to encode data in a custom mode in response to the decoder sensing received
data to be in the custom mode. (Br. Claims Appendix.) After carefully
considering the evidence before us, we find that Herve’s disclosure does not
reasonably teach this limitation. Particularly, we find insufficient evidence
in the record before us to support the Examiner’s conclusion of anticipation.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, we have found that
Herve teaches a CODEC for encoding/decoding audio or video data in the
ISDN or STN mode as selected by the management system via the switch.
(Finding 4.) We do not agree with the Examiner that Herve’s management
system comprises an encoder portion and a decoder portion. Albeit the
management system communicates with the encoder and decoder sections of
the CODEC via other intervening devices, it cannot be reasonably construed
to include the cited portions, as required by the above claims. Further, even
assuming that Herve’s management system does include the
encoder/decoder portions, Herve’s disclosure would still fall short of
teaching the above limitation. Particularly, we note that in Herve, the
management system selects a desired ISDN or STN mode of operation via
the switch and subsequently instructs the CODEC to decode and encode the
incoming data via the multiplexer/demultiplexer. We fail to find any
teaching in Herve of a decoder that senses or detects the mode of operation
of the visiophone for the decoder portion to subsequently instruct the
encoder portion to encode the incoming data.
It follows that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1,
9, 18, and 26 as being anticipated by Herve. Therefore, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9, 18, and 26 and associated
dependent claims 2 through 7, 10 through 16, 19 through 24, and 27 through
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013