Appeal 2007-1537
Application 09/916,903
we must first determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is
the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529
(Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the limitations as recited and
disputed in independent claim 1.
At the outset, we note that Appellants’ main contention is that the
combination of Elenbaas and Barton does not teach or fairly suggest the
recited steps of encoding and processing to produce a subset of channels or
channel indicators, and we further clarify in a digital video system. From
our review of Appellants’ Specification, we note that Appellants admit that
providing a subset of channels in an analog television system was well
known, and that it was fairly easy to determine due to snow/noise on the
channel. (Spec. 1). Therefore, we note that a corresponding method was
known in an analog system, but for whatever encoding and determining was
done in the digital system. Arguably there is some encoding and
determining done in the analog systems, yet that issue is not before us, and
we turn to the combination of Elenbaas and Barton.
Appellants’ main contention is that Elenbass and Barton do not teach
the “processing at least one of the corresponding intra and/or non-intra
pictures [as encoded] for each of the predetermined number of channels to
determine which of the predetermined number of channels contain
programming to provide the subset of channels with programming” (Br. 19-
26). The Examiner maintains the Elenbaas teaches the processing to
determine the subset of channels “of interest to the user” (Answer 3). While
we agree with the Examiner that Elenbaas does determine channels of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013