Appeal No. 1998-1397 Page 11
Application No. 08/482,905
frames of the first video scene;” “automatically transferring
only a portion of a second video scene from the video source
device to the storage device when needed, the portion being a
plurality of sequential video frames of the second video
scene;” “means for transferring only a portion of a first
video scene from the video source device to
the storage device, the portion being a plurality of
sequential video frames of the first video scene;” and “means
for automatically transferring only a portion of a second
video scene from the video source device to the storage device
when needed by processing unit, the portion being a plurality
of sequential video frames of the second video scene ....”
The examiner impermissibly relies on the appellants’ teachings
or suggestions. He fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims
21-22, 26-27, 29-30, and 37-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Westland; the rejection of claims 23-25 and 31-34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Westland in view of
Izeki; the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Westland in view of Mita; and the rejection of
claims 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007