Appeal No. 96-2997
Application 08/179,458
other frames in the segment (Answer, top of page 9), to be unpersuasive. This line of reasoning smacks
of obviousness, and considerations of obviousness or user preference are not applicable to the rejection
before us under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We agree with appellant (Brief, pages 5 to 6) that Poulett
discloses a constant slow motion as opposed to a skewed slow motion where different speeds exist in
the same segment, and that Poulett does not specifically disclose any change in slow motion speed
within a segment (Brief, page 7). We find that the examiner has failed to make a prima facie case of
anticipation.
Therefore, we conclude that appellant’s claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 are not anticipated by Poulett
under the doctrine of inherency. This is because the important recited feature of appellant’s claims 1, 5,
8, and 12 on appeal of providing slow motion, by replicating certain frames in an identified segment
more times than other frames in the segment (i.e., utilizing skewed time dilation), is neither expressly nor
inherently disclosed by the applied reference to Poulett.
Rejection of Claims 6 and 13 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Over Poulett Alone
With respect to claims 6 and 13 on appeal, appellant argues that Poulett does not teach nor
would have suggested that the number of times of replication of frames be dependent upon frame
position (Brief, page 7). The examiner agrees (Answer, pages 5 to 6), as do we. The examiner alleges
(Answer, pages 5 and 6) that by connecting a frame buffer to the output of Poulett, frames could be
recorded and then read out to create the type of skewed dilation recited in claims 6 and 13 on appeal.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007