Appeal No. 2003-1550
Application No. 09/365,209
components of a signal to be displayed “simultaneously,” does not
unequivocally lead to the conclusion that the components are
displayed at different respective times. Thus, we find nothing
in Gillard, and the examiner has not convinced us of any teaching
in Gillard, that indicates the receipt of image data comprising
frames, with each frame having a plurality of subframes, “each
subframe representing a different component of the image frame
for display at different respective times . . . within a frame
period,” as required by claim 1.
The problem with the examiner’s attempt to force the
disclosure of Gillard to “fit” the instant claimed invention
appears to lie in appellants’ R, G and B subframes (though these
are not specifically claimed in claim 1, the claim does recite
time periods TR, TG, TB), which are quite different from YUV
components. It is the R, G and B subframes, not YUV components,
which receive motion compensation in the instant invention. The
artisan would have understood, as appellants point out, at page 4
of the reply brief, that “YUV components in the conventional
sense are not for display at different respective times within a
frame period.”
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007