Ex Parte Radice

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 14, 2004

09039111 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2004)

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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ANTHONY M. RADICE
__________
Appeal No. 2002-0763
Application No. 09/039,111
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 10.
The disclosed invention relates to a coder for forming a
composite video signal from a plurality of N separate video
sources.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A coder for forming a composite video signal from a
plurality of N separate video sources, the coder comprising
Appeal No. 2002-0763
Application No. 09/039,111

2
a plurality of N coder modules, each module associated
with a separate video source for recording video information
and forming a digital representation thereof, each code
module including control means for inserting source and line
information into each digital line representation; and
a video multiplexer for sequentially multiplexing the
digital representations formed by the plurality of N coder
modules to form a composite video output signal.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Justice 3,745,242 Jul. 10, 1973
Yuasa et al. (Yuasa) 4,679,077 Jul. 7, 1987
Radice 5,138,440 Aug. 11, 1992
Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Justice in view of Radice.
Claims 6 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Justice in view of Radice and Yuasa.
Reference is made to the first Office Action (paper number
5), the brief (paper number 11) and the answer (paper number 12)
for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
10.
Appellant has not challenged the examiner’s findings (first
Office Action, pages 4 and 5) that Justice discloses an analog
video multiplexer that multiplexes a plurality of video sources
Appeal No. 2002-0763
Application No. 09/039,111

3
to yield composite analog video for transmission, and that Radice
discloses (Figure 2) a video coder module that provides for
converting an analog video signal to a digital video signal prior
to transmission. With respect to the examiner’s finding (first
Office Action, page 4) that Radice discloses in column 5, lines
32 through 39 “a means for inserting line identification
information that is digitally encoded along with video data,”
appellant argues (brief, page 4 and 5) that neither of the
applied references inserts source and line information into the
transmitted video signals.
We agree with the appellant’s argument. Justice is silent
as to source and line information, and the referenced portion of
Radice mentions “associated control and/or auxiliary data” and
“video identification byte including channel number information,”
but not source and line information. The examiner’s contention
(answer, page 3) that source and line information must be known
before decoding the multiplexed video lacks evidentiary support
in the record. In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344-45, 61 USPQ2d
1430, 1434-35 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Thus, the obviousness rejection
of claims 1 through 5 is reversed. The obviousness rejection of
Appeal No. 2002-0763
Application No. 09/039,111

4
claims 6 through 10 is likewise reversed because the video
teachings of Yuasa fail to cure the noted shortcoming in the
teachings of Justice and Radice.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH/hh
Appeal No. 2002-0763
Application No. 09/039,111

5
WENDY W. KOBA
P.O. BOX 556 PIKE
SPRINGTOWN, PA 18081-0556