Appeal No. 1999-2719
Application No. 08/637,807
According to the examiner (answer, pages 4 and 5),
Mankovitz discloses all of the claimed subject matter of
claims 1 and 13 except for low resolution image data.
The examiner took Official Notice (answer, page 5) that
“it is notoriously well known in the video recording art
to compress image information by subsampling the same,
thereby reduce [sic] the resolution thereof, and record
the image information as a compressed low-resolution
image data on a tape recording medium.” Based upon the
teachings of Mankovitz and the Official Notice, the
examiner then concluded (answer, page 5) that:
It would have been obvious to one skilled
in the art to modify the Mankovitz’s video
recording apparatus wherein the recording means
provided thereof (See Mankovitz’s Figure 1,
component VCR-1) would incorporate the
capability of compressing the received video
clip (From the program guide) before recording
the same on the recording medium as is well
known in the art. Examiner has taken Official
Notice. The motivation being to increase the
recording density of the recording medium as
suggested in the prior art.
Appellants argue (brief, page 8) that the examiner’s
“proposed motivation to combine, when considered
logically, suggests storing only compressed data . . . ,”
whereas claims 1 and 13 both require compressed data
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007