Appeal No. 2003-1617 Page 8
Application No. 09/144,240
"Nunally is disclosing the storage of the input sequence at a different frame rate. There
is absolutely no disclosure pertaining to storing the motion information of the image
sequence encoded at least at a second frame rate as claimed by the Appellants. The
Board's attention is directed to the simple fact that Nunally simply does not perform
encoding." (Reply Br. at 4.)
1. Claim Construction
Claim 5 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "storing said image
sequence encoded at a first frame rate; and . . . storing the motion information of the
image sequence encoded at least at a second frame rate." Accordingly, the limitations
require encoding an image sequence and motion information of the image sequence at
different frame rates.
2. Anticipation Determination
The passage of Nunally cited by the examiner "illustrates the processing by
which an overall rate at which video data fields are captured and stored is increased
when an alarm condition is detected." Col. 76, ll. 21-23. "[W]hen no alarm condition is
present, the VR/PC unit operates to capture and store 30 fields per second," id. at ll. 36-
37, "[b]ut when an alarm condition is detected, the aggregate field capture rate may be
increased to 45 fields per second." Id. at ll. 40-42. We are unpersuaded that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007