Appeal No. 2004-0204
Application No. 09/231,128
applied to the identified video stream, for the operator’s own information or personal
benefit (see answer-pages 5-6).
Appellant argues that since Rao does not teach that the disclosed 3:2 pulldown
detection is a defect, but only affects the compression decision when detected, the
artisan would have had no reason for combining this detection with Hasegawa, which
only looks for missing decoded fields for interruption of the transmission of the VOD
stream.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive since, as discussed supra, Hasegawa
already teaches/suggests detection of a “defect,” or, as broadly claimed, a
determination of a specific content characteristic and the report of an error when a
predetermined alarm criterion is met. Appellant has not pointed to any specific claim
language, other than “specified content characteristic” on which he relies for
patentability.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims1-3, 9, 11/8 and 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. §103.
Similarly, with regard to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 11/7, 18 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. §103 over Tamer or Dimitrova in view of Hasegawa, appellant merely points out
that Tamer teaches the display of a channel number when video fades to black and the
artisan would not have introduced this feature into Hasegawa except to display the
selected video channel when the VOD service is interrupted; that Tamer does not teach
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007