Appeal No. 2003-1373
Application No. 09/430,631
appellants, the insertion step followed by a decoding step in
Perkins is opposite to the decoding step followed by an insertion
step in claim 1. Turning to claim 18, Perkins recognizes that
audio data (i.e., non-video data) sometimes trails a video frame4
(column 10, lines 28 through 42). Notwithstanding Perkins’
recognition of the audio lag problem, Perkins does not decode such
non-video data in each of the streams, and then insert the decoded
non-video data back into the transition stream. As correctly
argued by appellants (brief, page 23), Perkins uses null packets in
place of the audio data (column 10, lines 36 through 42).
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 7,
10, 11, 13, 15, 18 through 22 and 24 is reversed because the
examiner has not presented a prima facie case of obviousness. In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).
The obviousness rejection of claims 14, 16 and 25 is reversed
because the teachings of Chen do not cure the noted shortcomings in
the teachings of Wee and Perkins.
4 Appellants’ disclosure (specification, page 28, lines 5
through 8) recognizes the same problem.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007