Appeal No. 96-2997
Application 08/179,458
Our careful review of Poulett fails to reveal any motivation or suggestion to record and play back a
video segment in different slow motion speeds for the purpose of providing a gradual slow motion
effect. In addition, the examiner has not cited any persuasive motivation for doing so, other than to say
that such a video effect is well-known in the art (Answer, pages 5 and 6). We agree with appellant
(Brief, pages 7 to 8) that there would have been no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to
attach and use a buffer in such a way and that to have done so would have involved the use of
hindsight.
The primary purpose of appellant's disclosed invention is to vary slow motion speed
within a dilated frame segment in order to permit gradual slow motion effects (specification, page 9) and
to avoid abrupt changes from/to normal video speed to/from slow motion video speed which is a
common problem in the prior art (appellant’s amendment of April 17, 1995, page 9). Appellant
attempts to overcome these difficulties with the prior art by using skewed time dilation which is
dependent upon frame position. This feature is positively recited in appellant’s claims 6 and 13 on
appeal. To say that it would have been obvious to use frame position to control replication in a slow
motion video segment, in light of a reference which fails to teach or suggest
such, is not plausible and would require recourse to appellant’s disclosure, i.e., the use of hindsight. 4
4 We note that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon
hindsight reasoning. But when it takes into account knowledge and motivation gleaned only from the applicant’s
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007