Appeal No. 2004-0422
Application No. 09/046,315
Appellants' specification and can find no basis to give either
rejection. Finally, we point out that if such a basis existed
for rejecting claim 5, then it would be equally applicable to all
the claims that depend from claim 5.
II. Whether the Rejection of Claims 5-12 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Liou does fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 5-12. Accordingly, we affirm.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
With respect to independent claim 5, Appellants argue at
page 4 of the brief, "Liou's intra-coded video is different than
Appellants' compressed DV intra frames. The official Action
failed to identify any suggestion in Liou of DV intra frames.
Thus, the rejection is improper and should be withdrawn."
Appellants also argue at page 2 of the reply brief, that the
Examiner has ignored Appellants' argument as to DV intra frames.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007