Appeal No. 96-2997
Application 08/179,458
1789 (BPAI 1986).
Claims 1 and 5 on appeal are directed to a method of, and claims 8 and 12 on appeal are
directed to the apparatus for, providing slow motion video by identifying and dilating a segment of
frames. Each of the frames in the segment is dilated to produce replicated frames. Furthermore,
intermediate frames (claims 1 and 8 on appeal) or frames at one end of the segment (claims 5 and 12
on appeal) are replicated a greater number of times than beginning and ending frames (claims 1 and 8
on appeal) or frames at a second end of the segment (claims 5 and 12 on appeal). The examiner
repeatedly (Answer, pages 3 to 4) relies upon Poulett’s disclosure at column 3, lines 53 to 55 as
inherently anticipating the recited feature of replicating intermediate or
first frames more times than beginning and ending or second frames. The examiner states that it is
"inherent that the frames at one end of the segment could have a different repetition rate than the
frames at the other end of the segment" (Answer, pages 3 and 4). We find this to be a possibility or
probability regarding what may have resulted from Poulett’s express disclosure of replicating frames in
a segment with three possible constant speeds (slow motion 1, slow motion 2, and slow motion 3 as
shown in figure 10C). Poulett’s slow motion device is capable of three speeds: constant slow motion
speed 1 using button S8; constant slow motion speed 2 using button S7; and variable slow motion
speed 3 using button S6 which allows the operator to vary speed using a control lever. While it is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007