Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
Tamer or Dimitrova in view of Hasegawa with regard to claims 1, 2, 7, 11/7, 18 and 19,
while offering Van De Schaar-Mitrea in view of Hasegawa with regard to claims 1, 2, 10,
18 and 19. The examiner offers Hirokawa in view of Hasegawa with regard to claims 1,
2, 14, 18 and 19.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
First, with regard to the rejection of independent claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§102 (e), a rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single prior art
document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention
without undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The examiner postulates that Hasegawa discloses a system, in Figure 1, and a
method, in Figure 7, for detecting errors, which the examiner equates to “abnormalities,”
in a video stream sent by headend 21, wherein count values indicative of specific video
content are stored and compared with a preset value, and a visual alarm, indicated by
the examiner as a “background color,” is displayed to the viewer. The examiner further
alleges that the Hasegawa system reports the occurrence of the detected error back to
the headend via element 36.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007