Appeal No. 1999-0003 Page 7
Application No. 08/642,742
26-29 specify, in pertinent part, the following limitations:
“[a]n apparatus for processing video data, comprising: (a) a
first format partial decoder; and (b) a second format partial
encoder; wherein: the first format partial decoder partially
decodes data encoded in a first high level encoding format to
provide data encoded in an interim level encoding format that
lies hierarchically above a low level format and
hierarchically below both the first high level encoding format
and a second high level format, wherein the second high level
is different from the first high level encoding format ....”
Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19-22, 24, and
26-29 require a three-level hierarchy of formats for encoding
video data.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the limitations in the applied prior art. "’A prima facie
case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the
prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.’" In
re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007