Appeal No. 1998-0498
Application No. 08/541,471
However, we institute a rejection of claims 17, 19, 21, 23,
25, 26, 28-31, 33 and 35 under the second paragraph of 35 USC
§ 112 because these claims are plainly indefinite. As to
claim 17, the interleaver clause is not clear as to what is
actually interleaved, the claimed video and audio signals or
the resulting video and audio frames on a sequential one-to-
one basis. A similar rejection is made with respect
independent claim 26 since is not clear whether the frames or
the signals are interleaved according to the recitation in the
last two lines of this claim. More specifically, the use of
the connective "which" appears to most likely modify the word
"signals" which is the last preceding word before the word
"which" but, in the context of the disclosed invention, the
interleaving is fairly indicated to be with respect to the
frames of video and audio information and not the signals
themselves.
In summary, we have affirmed the rejection of claims 11,
14 and 16, but we have reversed the rejection of claims 3, 6-
8, 10, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28-31, 33 and 35 under 35 USC §
103. We have also instituted a rejection of independent
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007