Appeal No. 2003-1617 Page 10
Application No. 09/144,240
2. Anticipation Determination
"For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, the examiner ’s answer . . . shall
explain why the rejected claims are anticipated or not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 102,
pointing out where all of the specific limitations recited in the rejected claims are
found in the prior art relied upon in the rejection." M.P.E.P. § 1208 (8th ed., rev. 1
Feb. 2003) (emphasis added). "[W]here there are questions as to how limitations in the
claims correspond to features in the prior art . . . , the examiner shall compare at least
one of the rejected claims feature by feature with the prior art relied on in the rejection.
The comparison shall align the language of the claim side-by-side with a reference to
the specific page, line number, drawing reference number, and quotation from the prior
art, as appropriate." Id.
Here, the passage of Nunally cited by the examiner follows.
FIG. 126 portrays operation of the VR/PC unit to provide pre-alarm buffer
storage of an incoming video signal stream at a field rate that is higher
than a "permanent" field rate that has been assigned to the video stream.
The first step in FIG. 126 is step 2518. At step 2518, an incoming video
data stream is received and captured in the form of a sequence of video
data fields. It is assumed for the purposes of this example that the video
data stream is captured at a rate of about three fields per second.
Col. 83, ll. 13-21. We are uncertain, however, where the examiner believes the claimed
"data structure" and "motion information field" are found therein. Likewise, we are
uncertain where in the reference the examiner believes the claimed "presence of motion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007