Appeal No. 2001-2575
Application No. 09/074,545
by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings
of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Furthermore, the Examiner must produce a factual basis supported
by teaching in a prior art reference or shown to be common
knowledge of unquestionable demonstration, consistent with the
holding in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Such
evidence is required in order to establish a prima facie case.
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88
(Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 668, 148 USPQ 268,
271-72 (CCPA 1966).
Independent claims 1, 13 and 20 require reducing the number
of chrominance data values of a small image before performing the
run length encoding of the reduced data. While Hirano does
disclose run length encoding of still image data (abstract), the
reference offers no teaching or suggestion of transforming the
image data to a luminance format including chrominance data
values and reducing such values. Normile performs the
compression process of video data by transforming the RGB
representation of digitized images to chrominance and luminance
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007