Appeal No. 1996-4091
Application 08/167,394
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under
§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses
every element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458,
221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Anticipation is established
only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or
under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention." RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984),
cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1994), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-
Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir.
1983). The prior art disclosure need not be expressed in order
to anticipate. Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus.,
Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369, 21 USPQ2d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 506 U.S. 817 (1992).
Appellants argue that Ng does not transcode the HD
macroblock information into lower resolution SD macroblock
information. Appellants state on page 4 of the brief that the
instant invention focusses on a method and apparatus which
enables an HD image sequence to be transcoded into an SD image
sequence by focussing on direct conversion of corresponding HD
macroblock information (e.g., HD type, motion vector and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007