Appeal No. 2001-1929
Application 09/167,994
as well as the Advisory Action at pages 4 and 5 of the answer
to jointly explain the examiner’s reasoning for the art rejection
of the claims on appeal is highly disfavored since it makes
reference to more than one prior Office action. Note MPEP
§ 1208.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief as well
as the answer for the details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse.
As the title of Boyce reveals, his invention relates to
decoding both high and standard definition video signals
utilizing the same video decoder. As noted at the bottom of page
3 of the principal brief on appeal and throughout this brief,
Boyce discloses reducing the cost and complexity of such a
decoder by reducing the amount of data processed for a high
definition video signal, thus lowering the image quality of this
type of video signal to correlate substantially to that of a
standard video signal. This is consistent with the end of the
abstract and is mentioned several times in the summary of the
invention
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007