Appeal No. 96-2997
Application 08/179,458
having a place in said video information stream relative to said other frames in said video information
stream, comprising the steps of:
a) identifying a segment of said frames, said frames in said segment being original frames,
said segment having beginning frames, intermediate frames and ending frames;
b) dilating said segment by replicating said original frames to produce replicated frames,
and for each of said original frames, placing said respective replicated frames in said video information
stream adjacent to said original frame;
c) said step of replicating said original frames further comprises the step of replicating said
intermediate frames a greater number of times than the number of times that said beginning and ending
frames are replicated.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Poulett 3,637,928 Jan. 25, 1972
Claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Poulett.
Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Poulett alone.3
3 We note that while the Answer lists Cohen et al. as being relied upon in the rejection of the claims on
appeal (Answer, page 2, section 7), neither the statement of the rejection in the Answer (Answer, pages 2 to 6,
section 9) nor the statement in the Final Rejection (Final Rejection, page 3, paragraphs 7 and 9) expressly rely upon
Cohen et al.. In explaining the rejection of claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner takes Official Notice as
to the feature of repeating original frames based on the position of the original frames in the video stream, i.e.,
acceleration or deceleration (first Office action, pages 10 to 11; Final Rejection, page 14; Answer, pages 9 to 10).
Appellant traversed this statement, and the examiner then cited Cohen et al. in the Final Rejection as showing this
feature. Lastly, we note that even when a reference is relied upon in a minor capacity to support a rejection, "there
would appear to be no excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of rejection." In re Hoch,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007