Appeal No. 96-2997
Application 08/179,458
possible that a user might choose different speeds during playback of a slow motion segment of frames
such that some frames in the segment are replicated more than others, we can find no express or
inherent disclosure in Poulett of varying a replication amount within a frame segment which is to be
dilated in order to provide slow motion video.
The examiner argues that each element of claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 on appeal is expressly
disclosed, with the exception of the most important element of a step or means for replicating certain
frames in a segment more times than other frames in the segment. The examiner says this step or means
for replicating is inherent in light of column 3, lines 53 to 55 of the Poulett reference (Answer, pages 3
to 4). However, we find it clear that such a feature is not expressly disclosed by Poulett nor is it
inherent from Poulett’s column 3, lines 50 to 53 as alleged by the examiner. In other words, such a
feature does not flow naturally from the elements expressly
disclosed in Poulett, and does not flow undeniably and irrefutably from the express disclosure of
Poulett. It is only present by virtue of the possibility of the intervening step of human perception,
awareness and understanding (e.g., user intervention to vary slow motion speed, using buttons S6-S8,
during playback of a segment of frames to be dilated).
We find the examiner’s argument, that the speed in Poulett may vary according to user
preference such that some frames in a segment may have a different speed or number of replicants than
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007