Appeal No. 2003-1373
Application No. 09/430,631
taught by Perkins et al for providing a special or other processing
effect as specified.”
Appellants’ disclosure indicates (specification, page 32,
lines 9 through 11) that “pixel domain processing” is used for
special effects. A noted special effect is the insertion of a
monochrome black frame between two images (specification, page 32,
lines 22 through 24). As indicated supra, claim 1 includes a step
of “using a pixel domain process.” Although appellants acknowledge
(brief, pages 7 and 10 through 12) that Perkins discloses a black
frame that is inserted into a first transport stream, they argue
(brief, page 11), however, that “[s]uch a single inserted black-I
frame is neither a decoded frame from the first transport stream or
the second transport stream nor is it one of the decoded image
frames that are subsequently encoded to produce the claimed
transition stream.” With respect to claim 18, appellants argue
(brief, page 23) that Perkins does not disclose “decoding relevant
non-video data from a first and second transport stream and later
inserting said information into the transition stream.”
We agree with appellants’ arguments. Perkins clearly
discloses (Figure 5; column 9, line 15 through column 10, line 24)
that the black I-frame is inserted at the slice point in the first
stream prior to a decoding step. As correctly argued by
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007