Appeal 2007-0982
Application 09/886,685
REJECTIONS
Appellants filed a Terminal Disclaimer on Jul. 11, 2006, to obviate the
double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-13 and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shaw in view of Hung.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Oct. 10, 2006) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to Appellants’ Brief (filed Dec. 8, 2005) and
Reply Brief (filed Dec. 4, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellants’ Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
references, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellants and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
35 U.S.C. § 103
From our review of the Examiner’s rejection, we find that the
Examiner has set forth a proper initial showing, with respect to independent
claim 1, to shift the burden to Appellants. We note that the claim limitation
“wherein the input or output frame rate is 24 frames-per-second or any
integer multiple or fraction thereof” is the main point of contention by
Appellants.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013