Appeal No. 2001-2307
Application No. 08/791,266
determination of the format of an incoming video signal, and processing the signal in
accordance with the determined format. The reference teaches (e.g., col. 4, ll. 49-53)
receiving signals that are in a known, presumably predetermined, format. That the
processors are programmable for different formats does not require that different
formats be sensed during normal operation, and we find no disclosure of such in the
four corners of the reference.
Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference disclosure of
each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as in the claim. Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221
USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We are in substantial agreement with appellant that
Fandrianto fails to disclose each and every element set forth in instant claim 5. Method
claim 9 requires automatically determining whether a received video signal is in a first or
second data format, forwarding, and processing the received signal accordingly. In
view of our understanding of the teachings of Fandrianto, we cannot sustain the section
102 rejection of either of claim 5 or claim 9.
Method claim 17 is drawn to capturing a video signal for transmission, selecting
whether to process the captured video signal into a first or a second predetermined
format, and converting the signal accordingly. Fandrianto discloses (e.g., col. 5, ll. 1-
39) capturing a video signal and encoding it for transmission using a single,
predetermined algorithm (e.g., the MCPIC algorithm), but not the process required by
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007