Appeal No. 2002-2327
Application No. 09/142,549
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of appealed independent claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, Appellants
assert that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness since all of the claimed limitations are not
taught or suggested by any of the applied prior art references.
In particular, Appellants contend (Brief, page 7) that the
applied Iu and Girod references, taken individually or
collectively, do not teach or suggest the embedding of a
supplemental data signal in a video signal by altering the
sequence pattern of a series of picture coding types in which a
particular pattern sequence represents the supplemental data as
claimed.
After reviewing the arguments of record from Appellants and
the Examiner, we are in general agreement with Appellants’
interpretation of the disclosures of Iu and Girod as stated in
the Brief. As asserted by Appellants, Iu discloses the altering
of a pattern sequence of coded picture types of a video signal to
improve the coding process by reducing prediction time intervals
and refresh time (Iu, column 8, lines 46-51), but has no
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007