Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
claimed. Brightness is “actually in the picture frame” and thus meets appellant’s
definition of “content characteristic” at page 4 of the brief.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§102 (e).
With regard to the rejection of claims 2, 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over
Hasegawa, the examiner explains that although Hasegawa does not specify the video
parameter being detected, it would have been obvious to apply the counter of
Hasegawa to the brightness data since video data is uniquely represented by and
presented as brightness and color information (answer-page 5).
Appellant argues that the examiner erroneously contends that it would have been
obvious to apply the counter of Hasegawa to brightness data. Appellant contends that
the rejection is “difficult to understand” since the brightness detector is just one of many
listed in claims 2 and 19, and is not mentioned in claim 18. The appellant urges that
only claim 16 recites that a brightness detector is used as the detecting means. In any
event, appellant contends that there is no teaching or suggestion in Hasegawa that a
brightness detector may be used ‘because Hasegawa is based on the absence of a
decoded picture frame” (brief-page 5).
We are unpersuaded by appellant’s arguments. First, in Hasegawa’s
background section, mentioned supra, detection of an abnormal state of a picture frame
based on brightness value is disclosed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007