The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte FRANK Z. BRILL and BRUCE E. FLINCHBAUGH
_____________
Appeal No. 2003-1420
Application No. 09/338,202
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, FLEMING, and DIXON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants have requested that we reconsider our September
9, 2004 decision wherein we affirmed the rejection of claims 16,
21, 22, 36 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the
teachings of Courtney.
Courtney teaches (column 7, lines 52 through 57) that the
motion based event detection system (Figures 1, 5 and 6)
generates a set of features referred to as a video-object or V-
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007