Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
within a single frame and does not teach intercoding of the
present invention. See pages 10 and 15 of the brief.
The Examiner acknowledges that Naimpally does teach intra-
frame and coding techniques but argues that Naimpally also
suggest the use of a “conventional MPEG encoder,” which uses
“motion compensated predictive encoding techniques.” The
Examiner’s points to column 6, lines 11 through 13 of Naimpally.
The Examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that Naimpally’s recitation of “motion compensated
predictive encoding techniques,” would include intra-frame
encoding. See page 6 of the Examiner’s answer.
The Federal Circuit reviews the Board’s ultimate conclusion
of obviousness without deference, and the Board’s underlying
factual determinations for substantial evidence. In re Huston,
308 F.3d 1267, 1276, 64 USPQ2d 1801, 1806 (Fed. Cir. 2002) citing
In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316, 53 USPQ2d 1769, 1776 (Fed.
Cir. 2000). “The Board’s findings must extend to all material
facts and must be documented on the record, lest the ‘haze of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007