Appeal No. 2002-1961
Application No. 09/133,430 Page 6
this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by the
appellants and the examiner. Upon evaluation of all the evidence
before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the
examiner is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the claims under appeal.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Our reasoning for this
determination follows.
A prima facie case of obviousness is established by
presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art 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) and In re Lintner, 458
F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Murashita
discloses (col. 3, lines 42-58) that:
The compressing field designating section uses
either one of the following three designating methods.
I. Either one of the odd field and the even field is
fixedly designated.
II. The designation of the odd field or the even
field is alternately switched every other frame.
III. In the case where a code amount of one frame
is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold
value (when an image change is small), the image of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007