Appeal No. 2004-0422
Application No. 09/046,315
We agree with Appellants that DV is a specific standard in
the art, and while extension of the process of Liou to the DV
standard may be obvious in the extreme (given Liou's columns 5
and 6 listing of standards to which his process is applicable),
we agree with Appellants that Liou does not teach the DV
standard.
However, Appellants' argument as to DV intra frames is not
persuasive as claim 5 fails to recite this feature. Claim 5, at
line 4, only requires "intra frames" not "DV intra frames" as
argued. We find that Liou teaches "intra frames." See for
example, Liou's column 19, line 60.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claim 13 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 not fully meet the invention as
recited in claim 13. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claim 13, Appellants present the
same argument as above with respect to claim 5. Here we find
that the argument is fully persuasive as claim 13 does recite "DV
data" and as we have stated above, "we agree with Appellants that
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007