Appeal No. 1999-2306
Application 08/639,284
with the examiner that Lane teaches that frames of a bitstream
are stored. We find that this teaching extends to bitstreams
which are in frame form such as D, I, B and P frames or frames
which have been assembled in sequence such as the I-frames
taught by Lane. The decoding and encoding steps of claim 1
which were found not anticipated by Lane are not present in
claim 18. Thus, we agree with the examiner that the invention
of claim 18 is fully met by the disclosure of Lane.
The fact that Lane indicates that the prior art
technique would have difficult problems to overcome does not
eliminate this disclosure as a valid reference. The prior art
does not indicate that the problems cannot be solved, only
that the problems are difficult to solve. Anticipation would
not be defeated by merely arguing the level of difficulty
involved unless it could be shown that the teaching relied on
was not enabling. Such a showing is not present here.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 and of claims
20 and 21 which are grouped therewith.
Claim 19, which depends from 18, is separately argued.
Appellants argue that Lane relates to actions performed on
packet headers rather than bitstream sequence headers as
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007