Appeal No. 2000-2138
Application No. 08/935,314
(answer, page 4). deBoer teaches that “[i]t is known to detect such a drop-out and to insert a
corresponding part of a preceding line or a corresponding line of a preceding field at this location.”
The examiner’s contentions to the contrary notwithstanding, a field is merely part of a frame.
Thus, we agree with the appellants’ argument (reply brief, page 3) that:
The deBoer reference only discloses inserting, into the current frame, part of a
preceding line or a line of a preceding field of the current frame. There is no
suggestion in deBoer to insert some or all of a preceding frame into the current
frame.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 15 is reversed because the
applied references neither teach nor would they have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
claimed invention.
DECISION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007