Appeal No. 2002-0763
Application No. 09/039,111
to yield composite analog video for transmission, and that Radice
discloses (Figure 2) a video coder module that provides for
converting an analog video signal to a digital video signal prior
to transmission. With respect to the examiner’s finding (first
Office Action, page 4) that Radice discloses in column 5, lines
32 through 39 “a means for inserting line identification
information that is digitally encoded along with video data,”
appellant argues (brief, page 4 and 5) that neither of the
applied references inserts source and line information into the
transmitted video signals.
We agree with the appellant’s argument. Justice is silent
as to source and line information, and the referenced portion of
Radice mentions “associated control and/or auxiliary data” and
“video identification byte including channel number information,”
but not source and line information. The examiner’s contention
(answer, page 3) that source and line information must be known
before decoding the multiplexed video lacks evidentiary support
in the record. In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344-45, 61 USPQ2d
1430, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Thus, the obviousness rejection
of claims 1 through 5 is reversed. The obviousness rejection of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007