Appeal No. 1997-0650
Application 08/171,136
teachings of Golin as the same as these signals. Appellant
asserts otherwise in the brief and we agree with this
position. We do not see nor do we understand how the artisan
would have seen the correlation of the various signals of the
output circuit block diagrams of the figures of Golin to
correspond to the claimed instantaneous match signal of
independent claims 1 and 25 on appeal, as well as this signal
in addition to the cumulative match (CM) signal of independent
claims 21 and 24 on appeal. Although both appellant and we
agree that Avis teaches broadly the concept of block
comparisons between respective frames of a video signal, we
are not persuaded by any rationale provided by the examiner or
any teachings or suggestions of Golin and Avis to have led the
artisan to have combined the block division teachings of Avis
into the system of Golin as asserted by the examiner. We are
therefore not persuaded that the examiner has set forth a
prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed invention set
forth at least in independent claims 1, 11, 21, 24 and 25 on
appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007