Appeal No. 2003-1419
Application No. 09/001,199
[T]he proposed combination of Boyce and Matthews does
suggest discarding unnecessary macroblocks outside the “safe
title” and “safe region” because Matthews, according [to] the
cited passage, particularly realizes that it is not in the best
interest of the viewer to contemplate an unreliable presentation,
which is the result of macroblocks outside the region described.
In other words, the unreliable presentation as seen in Matthews
is due to the fact that all the data is not present in the displayed
image, that is, the data outside the “safe title” “safe region” as
disclosed by Matthews have been discarded.
Further, on page 9 of the answer, the examiner argues:
Matthews realizes that areas in the outer border of the
display cannot be guaranteed, because these border items usually
create artifacts, eliminating, these items, constituting the border
macroblocks, is therefore strongly suggested by Matthews,
therefore, obvious to one skilled in the art as disclosed in col. 13,
lines 21-35 and col. 14, lines 3-7.
We disagree with the examiner’s rationale. An obviousness analysis
commences with a review and consideration of all the pertinent evidence and
arguments. “In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and arguments.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[T]he Board must not
only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record,
but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support
the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430,
1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In addition, our reviewing court stated in In re Lee, 277
F.3d at 1343, 61 USPQ2d at 1433, that when making an obviousness rejection
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007