Appeal No. 1999-0089 Page 5
Application No. 08/454,076
With these principles in mind, we consider the appellants'
argument and the examiner's reply.
The appellants argue, "[i]t is not enough for Krause
simply to provide four possible modes, two of which correspond
to Appellants' two modes. Rather, Krause must provide some
teaching of selecting either the first mode or the second mode
-- and this simply is not expressly or even impliedly
disclosed." (Reply Br. at 7.) The examiner replies, "[w]hile
it is true that Krause et al employs two other modes (i.e.
intra-frame prediction encoding with frame-based orthogonal
transformation and inter-frame prediction with field-based
orthogonal transformation), the present claims do not exclude
these other modes." (Examiner's Answer at 6.) We consider
the argument and reply with respect to the following claims:
• claims 18, 38, 40, and 42
• claims 39 and 41.
Claims 18, 38, 40, and 42
“[W]hen interpreting a claim, words of the claim are
generally given their ordinary and accustomed meaning ....”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007