Appeal No. 96-2997
Application 08/179,458
Rather than repeat the positions of appellant and the examiner, reference is made to the Brief
and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that the claims on appeal (claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 13) fall into three
groups. Claims 1 and 8 on appeal recite a method and apparatus for slow motion video wherein
middle frames are copied more times than beginning and end frames; claims 5 and 12 on appeal recite a
method and apparatus for slow motion video wherein frames at one end of a video stream are copied
more times than frames at the other end; and claims 6 and 13 on appeal recite a method and apparatus
for slow motion video wherein the number of times each frame in the video stream is copied is
dependent upon frame position in the video stream.
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied patent, the respective viewpoints of appellant and the
examiner, and all other evidence of record. While we cannot say that there is better prior art available
than that applied by the examiner, we can say that the art relied upon does not support the rejection.
428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). Cohen et al. has not been positively included in a
statement of the rejection, and thus we find Cohen et al. not to be relied upon in the rejection of claims 6 and 13.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007