Appeal No. 2002-2327
Application No. 09/142,549
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 13) and the
Answer (Paper No. 14) for the respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
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 recited in claims
1-11.1 Accordingly, we reverse.
1 We make the observation that claims 9 and 10 are directed to an
“encoded video signal” per se. It is not readily apparent as to which of the
four classes of statutory subject matter enumerated in 35 U.S.C. § 101 such
subject matter would fall. The “signal” of claims 9 and 10 is clearly not a
“process” since no series of steps are recited. Such a “signal” would also
not seem to fall within any of the three product classes, i.e., machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, since each of these traditionally
requires physical structure or matter. Further a signal per se, as an
abstract arrangement of information, does not produce a useful, concrete and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007