Appeal No. 1996-3647
Application No. 08/065,720
The obviousness rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 11 through
13, 17, 19 and 20 is sustained as to claims 1, 6, 7 and 17,
and is reversed as to claims 11 through 13, 19 and 20.
Turning first to the obviousness rejection of claim 1,
appellant argues that “Cohen discloses a video system for
‘moving’ pictures” (Brief, page 5), and that “Cohen discloses
that changes are not made during the presentation” (Brief,
page 6).
If appellant’s point is that the ‘moving’ pictures are
not “still” images, then appellant’s argument is in error.
Cohen explicitly explains (column 1, lines 14 through 21)
that:
[I]t is well known in the art to convert dynamic
images, i.e., video images, into a digital
representation. Typically, in the digital
representation on, for example, a computer system,
the video image is captured as a sequence of static
images. Each static image captures an instant in
time of the video image. Movement is apparent to
the viewer by the rapid display of the sequence of
static images.
According to Cohen (column 7, lines 13 through 15), each frame
of a video image corresponds to an individual image in a
sequence of images, and that “[u]sing the NTSC format as an
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007