Appeal No. 1999-2306
Application 08/639,284
the recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385,
388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L.
Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner indicates how he reads the claimed
invention on the disclosure of Lane [answer, pages 4-7].
Appellants nominally argue the rejection against the claims in
eight separate groupings [brief, page 3, reply brief, page 2].
Appellants’ first grouping of claims includes claims
1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 25 and 26. With respect to
these claims, appellants argue that Lane does not disclose
generation of a trickplay stream at all. Appellants also
argue that Lane does not disclose the step of extracting
intracoded frames from the normal play bitstream which
includes storing the intracoded frames in a storage memory.
Appellants also argue that it is not clear that Lane forms an
assembled bitstream from the extracted intracoded frames.
Finally, appellants argue that Lane does not disclose decoding
an assembled bitstream to produce uncompressed frames and then
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007