Appeal No. 2002-1961
Application No. 09/133,430 Page 3
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered. See 37
CFR 1.192(a).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejection advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejection. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the invention of claims 1-7. Accordingly, we reverse.
We begin with claim 1. The examiner's position (answer,
page 4) is that Murashita is silent about compression coding
another field of the input image signal wherein the one field and
the another field are of the same frame. To overcome this
deficiency of Murashita, the examiner (answer, pages 4 and 5)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007