Appeal No. 2003-1617 Page 4
Application No. 09/144,240
in two separate storages," (id. at 6), he concludes, "the frame rate change is inherently
performed as the field rate change is requested." (Id.) The appellants argue,
"selectively dropping frames or lines from an input stream is not changing the frame rate
by retrieving the stored motion information of the same image sequence encoded
at a second frame rate." (Reply Br. at 3.)
In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the independent claims at issue to determine their scope. Second,
we determine whether the construed claims are anticipated.
1. Claim Construction
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Here, claim 1 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "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
12 and 16 include similar limitations. Accordingly, claims 1, 12, and 16 require
changing the frame rate at which an image sequence is transferred by retrieving stored
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007