Appeal No. 2001-2005
Application 08/893,024
lines 17-24, which are further developed according to the
discussion at column 12, lines 20-39, and the discussion at the
bottom of column 11 of Montgomery also fail to teach or suggest
within Montgomery the coding within a color field information
portion any data indicating a phase-shift of a subcarrier of the
digital video information. All of these noted locations relate
to the mere synchronization of data and not any phase-shift of a
subcarrier related to color field information. Basically, the
phase-synchs taught in Montgomery as a whole and these latter
noted locations relied on by the examiner clearly indicate to us
that phase synchronization is not a phase-shift as claimed.
Our study of Montgomery therefore is consistent with the
arguments presented by appellant at pages 5 and 6 of the
principal brief on appeal and the similar arguments raised at
pages 2 and 3 of the reply brief. We also find ourselves
generally in agreement with appellant's urging at the top of page
3 of the reply brief that Montgomery does not disclose the
addition of timing information (such as phase-shift information
of a subcarrier associated with color field information as
claimed) to the digital video information during an encoding or
generation of video block units as in claim 10. The discussion
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007