Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
Appellant’s view is that Claims 1 and 18 recite “detecting a specified content
characteristic in the video stream” and that a “specified content characteristic” is not
equivalent to a count value that indicates whether a picture frame has been decoded or
not between computer interrupts. That is, appellant argues that one cannot equate an
interrupted service of Hasegawa, indicated by a lack of a decoded picture frame to a
content characteristic of the instant invention, wherein such characteristic is based on
comparing decoded picture frames with other picture frames, i.e., what is actually in the
picture frame is the content characteristic, not the absence of a picture frame (brief-
page 4).
We agree with the examiner that a broad, yet reasonable, interpretation of the
claim limitation, “specified content characteristic” would include the disclosure by
Hasegawa wherein an abnormality, causing an interruption, is an indication of a
“content characteristic” since detection of presence or absence of a video signal can
certainly be a “content characteristic.” If a signal is absent, there is no content; hence
the “characteristic” of the content is that it is not present. Moreover, as pointed out by
the examiner, Hasegawa , in the background section of the patent, discusses prior art
detection of an abnormal state from picture data of a monitor, wherein brightness value
of pixel data of a moving picture frame is compared with that of a picture frame taken
previously. Clearly, “brightness” can be considered as a “content characteristic,” as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007