Appeal No. 2004-0422
Application No. 09/046,315
DV is a specific standard in the art and that Liou does not teach
this standard."
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
IV. 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 Saito does not fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 5-12. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claim 5, Appellants argue at
page 4 of the brief, that Saito fails to teach "intra frames."
Appellants also argue, that Saito fails to teach "compressed"
intra frames.
Our reading of Saito shows that "intra frames" are taught.
See for example, Saito's column 3 at line 45. However, we agree
with Appellants that Saito does not teach "compressed" intra
frames. We note that Saito teaches an "encoder" at figure 3, and
artisans would read an encoder as usually (but not always)
including compression. However, "usually" is not sufficient for
a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007