Appeal No. 1999-0016
Application 08/638,071
teaches or suggests analog devices for quantization.
Appellant argues that Appellant’s claim 1 calls for a
quantizer implemented using analog devices which would not be
obvious in view of Chiang or Merola or the prior art in
figures 1a and 1b since this is not taught or suggested in
these references. Appellant further points out that all the
independent claims recite this limitation.
On page 5 of the answer, the Examiner responds by stating
that it is noted that the actual “quantization using analog
devices” limitation is not expressly shown in Chiang or
Merola. The Examiner argues that this limitation is
implicitly disclosed since the coder shown in figure 1 of
Chiang must have analog devices for processing the analog
signal from the transform device 20. The Examiner further
argues that Merola implicitly teaches “quantization using
analog devices” in that the processor shown in figure 4
receives and provides analog signals.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is
the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.2d 1362, 1369, 47
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007