Appeal No. 1999-2306
Application 08/639,284
claimed. The examiner disagrees with appellants and points to
the operation of Lane’s preferred embodiment.
As noted above, we find that Lane’s preferred
embodiment has nothing to do with the prior art embodiment
also disclosed by Lane. Therefore, the headers of the data
packets in Lane have nothing to do with bitstream sequence
headers sent along with I-frames. The admitted prior art of
Lane does not indicate how the I-frames are to be extracted
from the normal bitstream or what specific information is to
be extracted and assembled. Therefore, we agree with
appellants that Lane does not disclose the extraction of
sequence headers from a bitstream and the assembling of
sequence headers along with the I-frames to form an assembled
bitstream as recited in claim 19. Therefore, we do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 19.
Claims 22 and 23 are separately argued by appellants.
These claims recite that matrices in the normal bitstream are
located and included in the assembled bitstream. Appellants
argue that there is no disclosure of matrices in Lane. The
examiner responds that digitized video signals in the MPEG
format are known to include matrices and the assembly of a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007