Appeal No. 2002-1162
Application No. 08/683,994
transmission of the signal can be resumed after an interruption
nor is the reproduction of the signal interrupted upon detection
of a position label after a pause command is received (brief,
pages 4 & 5). Additionally, Appellants assert that when a
subscriber enters a “pause” command, the decoding is immediately
frozen and the last decoded frame is displayed (brief, page 5).
Appellants further argue that Kostreski’s time stamp is not the
same as the claimed position labels because the time stamp is
derived from the MPEG data of the frozen frame and is transmitted
after the decoding is frozen (id.).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that the positioning of the frames is encoded as part of the
normal MPEG data stream whereas time stamps are interleaved with
the frame data which are extracted in the client hardware
(answer, page 5). The Examiner further relies on the timing and
frame information during the normal display of the movie and
concludes that such timing information, which is embedded in the
MPEG data stream before the data stream is transmitted to the
client, reads on the claimed “position labels” (id.).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007