Appeal No. 2003-1419
Application No. 09/001,199
based on combination, “there must be some motivation, suggestion or teaching
of the desirability of making the specific combination that was made by
Applicant” (quoting In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343, 48 USPQ2d 1635, 1637
(Fed. Cir. 1998)).
We do not find that Matthews provides suggestion to delete data from
macroblocks in the “safe title” or “safe region” as asserted by the examiner.
Matthews teaches a system for displaying a list of items and that some of the
items extend beyond the borders of the display, (see abstract of Matthews).
Matthews states that since some monitors suffer from vertical and horizontal
drift, the “safe title” and “safe action” regions are used to ensure that objects
intended for display are actually presented (see column 3, lines 1-17). Matthews
also teaches that it is preferred that the list should be displayed in the “safe title”
region. Further, since some items in the list are intentionally only partially
displayed, compensation for the safety zones is not needed, as the full display of
these items is not required (see column 13, lines 57-59 and column 14, lines
3-7). Thus, Matthews teaches that when video content is created, it should be in
the safe regions or else it may not be displayed. However, we do not find that
Matthews suggests that the data in these areas should be deleted. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-9 and 13-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Boyce in view of Matthews.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007