Appeal No. 2002-1510
Application No. 08/882,625 Page 5
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We observe at the outset that both the examiner (answer,
page 5) and appellants (brief, page 8) agree that Pecot does not
disclose “means for allocating a target compressed data bit rate
to pictures or blocks of pictures of a current group of pictures
according to a ratio of an amount of data generated during an
intra-frame coding of a prior group of pictures and an amount of
data generated during an inter-frame coding of said prior group
of pictures," as recited in claim 1. In addition, we observe
that appellants do not contest the combinability of Pecot and
Lee, but rather assert (brief, page 5) that Lee does not disclose
“means for allocating a target compressed-data bit rate to
pictures or blocks of pictures of a current group of pictures
according to a ratio of an amount of data generated during an
intra-frame coding of a prior group of pictures and an amount of
data generated during an inter-frame coding of said prior group
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007