Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
With regard to appellant’s difficulty in understanding the rejection because
brightness is “just one of many listed” in claims 2 and 19, these claims list the detectors
in a Markush group, “the group consisting of...” Accordingly, a showing of any one of
the items in that group is sufficient to meet the claim language. The examiner has
shown the obviousness of employing a brightness detector in view of Hasegawa. This
is all that is required, as broadly as the subject matter is claimed.
While Hasegawa’s preferred embodiment may involve detecting the absence of a
decoded picture frame, the discussion of the prior art to Hasegawa, still part of the
Hasegawa disclosure, makes it clear that it was known to detect brightness in detecting
defects, or abnormalities, of a picture frame.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 2, 16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
With regard to claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11/8 and 18-20, the examiner contends that since
Rao analyzes content in a video stream, by detecting duplicate fields, to decide which
compression mode should be applied, with signal 418 used to indicate the results of the
data detected in video sequence (the indication being reasonably considered a type of
alarm), that it would have been obvious to register the detection, or to make a note or
record of it, constituting a report as specifically taught by Hasegawa, at least for the
purpose of informing the operator of the results, with the subsequent processing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007