Appeal No. 2003-1617 Page 7
Application No. 09/144,240
step 2522, all of the captured data fields are recorded in a ring buffer area on the hard
disk drive to provide a recording rate equal to the capture rate, i.e., three fields per
second. . . ." Id. at ll. 30-33.
We are unpersuaded that Nunally's changing the recording rate of the captured
video data stream necessitates changing the frame rate of the stream. Similarly, we are
unpersuaded that the captured video data stream is encoded at a different frame rate.
The absence of evidence showing the change of the frame rate at which an image
sequence is transferred by retrieving stored motion information pertaining to the image
sequence, wherein the stored motion information is encoded at a different frame rate,
"negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571,
230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of
claim 1; of claim 4,which depends therefrom; of claim 12; of claim 15, which depends
therefrom; of claim 16; and of claim 19, which depends therefrom.
B. CLAIMS 5 AND 6
The examiner asserts that Nunally discloses " storing the image sequence
encoded at a first frame rate (See Nunally col. 76, lines 35-40), and storing motion
information of the image sequence encoded at least at a second frame rate (See
Nunally col. 76, lines 40-45)." (Examiner's Answer at 7.) The appellants argue,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007