Ex parte LIU et al. - Page 1




             The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
                    for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.        
                                                                 Paper No. 19         
                       UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                      
                                     ____________                                     
                          BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                          
                                   AND INTERFERENCES                                  
                                     ____________                                     
              Ex parte CHRISTINA K. LIU, JUDITH A. GOLDSTEIN, and YUNG D.             
                                        NGUYEN                                        
                                     ____________                                     
                                 Appeal No. 1999-0003                                 
                              Application No. 08/642,742                              
                                     ____________                                     
                                       ON BRIEF                                       
                                     ____________                                     
          Before KRASS, LALL, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.                
          BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.                                         



                                  DECISION ON APPEAL                                  
               This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from                
          the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19-22, 24,                
          and 26-29.  We reverse.                                                     


                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The invention at issue in this appeal relates to                       
          processing video data, i.e., data representing still images or              
          successive images representing motion video.  Different video               






Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007