Appeal No. 2003-1419
Application No. 09/001,199
Next, we turn to the rejection of claims 2 and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Boyce in view of Matthews and Kim. These claims
are ultimately dependent upon either claim 1 or 6, and as such include the
limitation of discarding from the digital video data only those macroblocks not
associated with a picture region. On page 6 of the answer, the examiner states
that Kim is relied upon to teach “parsing to extract from the digital video data,
one of a macroblock address indicium and slice position indicium.” However, the
examiner has not shown that Kim teaches the limitation of discarding from the
digital video data, only those macroblocks not associated with a picture region.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 2 and 10-12 under 35
U.S.C § 103, as it contains the same deficiencies as noted in the rejection of
claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C § 103.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007