Appeal No. 2003-1617 Page 3
Application No. 09/144,240
c) transferring the image sequence at said second frame rate by
retrieving stored information of said image sequence in accordance with
said second frame rate, wherein said transferring step transfers the image
sequence at said second frame rate by retrieving a stored motion
information of said image sequence encoded at said second frame rate.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,974,235 ("Nunally").
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the claims in the following order:
• claims 1, 4, 12, 15, 16, and 19
• claims 5 and 6
• claims 7 and 9-11.
A. CLAIMS 1, 4, 12, 15, 16, AND 19
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on the point of contention therebetween. The examiner "direct[s] . . . attention to
Nunally's fig. 126 where in step 2518 an image sequence is being received, and in
step 2520, stored to a disk drive at a fist [sic] frame rate 'time lapse' (See Nunally
col. 83, lines 16-25). In step 2522, the same a sequence is being stored at a second
frame rate 'full field' in the buffer area (See Nunally col. 83, lines 25-27)." (Examiner's
Answer at 5-6.) "[N]ot[ing] that data from one sequence is being stored at different rate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007