Appeal No. 2006-2658
Application No. 09/790,334
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 11-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Sato.
Claims 3 and 5-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner offers Sato as the primary
reference, together with Beretta with regard to claim 3, Gates
with regard to claim 6, Koyanagi with regard to claim 7, Moura
with regard to claim 9, Weiman with regard to claim 10, and Lee
with regard to claims 5, 8, and 9.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 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. See Atlas Powder Co.
v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed.
Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Taking independent claim 1 as exemplary, at page 4 of the
answer, the examiner asserts that Sato discloses the compressing
of one or more video streams comprising one or more image input
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007