Appeal 2007-0982
Application 09/886,685
in claims 6, 11, 16, and 20 of the patent. Therefore, we cannot agree with
Appellants that Hung merely suggests 24 fps as a minimum, but rather Hung
suggests the use of 24 fps and discusses 30 fps in the specific example.
Therefore, finding no persuasive argument showing error in the Examiner’s
initial showing, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and
independent claims 15, 16, and 18 which Appellants have grouped
therewith. Similarly, finding no separate arguments for patentability, we
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-13 and 17 with their respective
independent claims.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have sustained the rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
tdl/ce
GIFFORD, KRASS, SPRINKLE, ANDERSON & CITKOWSKI, P.C.
PO BOX 7021
TROY, MI 48007-7021
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013