Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
(Fed. Cir. 1991). “Inherency, however, may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain
thing may result for a give set of circumstances is not
sufficient.” Id. citing Continental Can Co. v. Mosanto Co.,
948 F.3d 1264, 1269, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Without further evidence to show that Naimpally teaches
expressly or by inherency inter-frame coding techniques, we can
not find that the combination teaches all the elements of the
claim. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 29, 31, 33 through 39, 46 through 53, 56, 59 through
66, 69, 72 through 76, 78 and 79 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Heyl, Tanaka and Naimpally.
Claims 30, 32, 54, 57, 67, 70 and 77 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Heyl, Tanaka and
Naimpally in view of Enari. We note that the Examiner relies on
Naimpally for the teaching of inter-frame coding. Furthermore,
we note that Enari fails to teach such coding, therefore, we will
not sustain this rejection for the same reasons as above.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007