Appeal 2007-2220
Application 09/896,231
transmission capacity8 of the distribution network in determining when to
deliver the requested media. See, e.g., Haddad, col. 9, ll. 7-13 (discussing
the rule-based approach of the Scheduling module to select and optimize
delivery of video segments when channels become free to efficiently utilize
the available hardware channels); see also id. at col. 11, ll. 3-4 and 9-10
(basing selection of a particular segment in part on the current channel
status, including when each channel becomes free).
The clear import of this discussion is that during off-peak hours, there
is less demand and therefore additional transmission capacity of the
distribution network that is underutilized. Haddad’s system, in effect,
reallocates this underutilized “excess” capacity for transmissions that would
otherwise have occurred during peak hours and taxed the system. In short,
the skilled artisan would readily understand from Haddad that underutilized
or “excess” transmission capacity initially allocated for off-peak hour
transmissions is essentially reallocated for rescheduled transmissions.
For at least these reasons, we find Haddad amply teaches the
limitations of claims 1 and 63. Moreover, Appellants have not persuasively
rebutted the Examiner’s position regarding the obviousness of the limitations
of claim 5 based on the combined disclosures of Haddad and Hooper.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5, and 63.
Likewise, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Haddad and Greenwood. We find that
(1) the Examiner has established at least a prima facie case of obviousness
for this claim on Pages 7 and 8 of the Answer, and (2) Appellants have not
8 See, e.g., Haddad, col. 6, ll. 12-15 (noting the fiber optic link is capable of
handling about 80 different programs simultaneously at 270 Mbits/sec).
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013