Appeal No. 1996-4091
Application 08/167,394
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for being based upon the
reasons set forth in the objection to the specification.
Claims 1 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Ng.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 4 are anticipated
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Ng. However, we do not agree with the
Examiner that claims 1 through 4 are properly rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth
infra.
In regard to the rejection of Appellants' claims 1
through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, we note that
the Examiner argues on pages 3 and 4 of the answer that
Appellants have failed to provide an enabling disclosure for
the process and apparatus for converting the HD macroblock
information to SD macroblock information. The Examiner further
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007