Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 4 and 18 Under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is proper?
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 obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 4 and 18.
With respect to claim 4, we note that the Examiner has
relied on the admitted prior art solely to teach an H.263
compliant coder and the requirements thereof [answer, page 5].
The admitted prior art in combination with the Yamaguchi et al
reference fails to cure the deficiencies of Yamaguchi et al noted
above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same
reasons as set forth above.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claims 11-13 and 25-27 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007