Appeal No. 1997-2398
Application No. 08/354,929
us that the applied patents themselves would not have been
suggestive of the invention now claimed.
The examiner (Final Rejection, page 3) basically relies
on Gobert for teaching all the features required by
independent claim 1 except for the limitation of comparing
“... a number of bits N, less than all of the bits used to
represent a picture element value.” The examiner cites Music
as teaching the feature of “... a number of bits N, less than
all of the bits used to represent a picture element value,”
and contends that it would have been obvious to modify Gobert
by incorporating the bit-width truncation feature of Music
because such a modification would further reduce the
computational complexity goal expressed by Gobert (Final
Rejection, page 4). Further, the examiner states (Final
Rejection, pages 3 and 4) that Music suggests the
applicability of bit-width truncation in the area of frame-
differencing or motion compensation.
In rebuttal, the appellant requests reversal of the
examiner’s rejection asserting that the examiner’s rejection
misinterprets the Music and Gobert references and
misunderstands the effect of combining the features that these
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007