Appeal No. 2003-1373
Application No. 09/430,631
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 8 and 10), an
early Office Action (paper number 3) and the answer (paper number
9) for the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 7,
10, 11, 13 through 16, 18 through 22, 24 and 25.
The examiner is of the opinion (paper number 3, pages 2 and 3)
that Wee discloses all of the method steps of claims 1 and 18
except for “a well known pixel domain process and a well known
steps of inserting into the transition stream, an extracted non-
video (audio) data.” According to the examiner (paper number 3,
page 3), “Perkins et al disclose the well known pixel domain
processing to provide a special or other processing effect (Col. 5,
lines 53-67 and Col. 6, lines 1-12) and a well known steps of
inserting into the transition stream, an extracted non-video
(audio) data (Col. 10, lines 28-43) as specified in claim[s] 18-
20.” The examiner concludes (paper number 3, page 3) that “it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
relevant art employing a method for generating a transition stream
as taught by Wee et al to incorporate the well known concept of
pixel domain process[ing] and inserting non-video (audio) data as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007