Appeal No. 2003-1550
Application No. 09/365,209
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellants’
grouping at page 8 of the principal brief, all claims will stand
or fall together. Accordingly, we will focus on independent
claim 1.
A rejection for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires
that the four corners of a single prior art document describe
every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or
inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas
Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943,
1946-47 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79,
31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
It is the examiner’s view that Gillard discloses, in Figures
1-3 and 11-13, a motion compensated interpolation of digital
television images which is the same as motion compensation of
displays, as set forth in the instant claims. The examiner
contends that the reference processes received image data
comprising frames 31, each frame defining a plurality of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007