Appeal No. 2004-1031
Application No. 09/448,952
from a plurality of imaging modalities that are appropriate for a
movie, a TV program or music (column 3, lines 22 through 27; column
4, lines 62 through 67; column 8, lines 30 through 33; column 9,
lines 23 through 27). Based upon the selected routine/imaging
modality, the image data is compressed by encoder 180 (Figure 1;
column 8, lines 30 through 33; column 9, lines 23 through 27). The
side information/descriptive data is referred to as a header
(column 13, lines 16 and 17).
Appellants’ argument (brief, pages 9 through 12) that
Dieterich is non-analogous art is without merit because Dieterich,
while not in the medical field, addresses and solves the same
problem that confronted the appellants. “A reference is reasonably
pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that
of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter
with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966
F.2d 656, 659, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The problem
confronting appellants was the selection of an appropriate
compression routine for uncompressed image data received at a
receiver, and the problem confronting Dieterich was the selection
of the appropriate compression routine for uncompressed image data
received at a receiver. Appellants’ argument (brief, page 11) to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007