Appeal No. 2000-1540
Application No. 09099,617
OPINION
With regard to independent claim 1, the examiner takes the
position that Nickerson allocates bits to encode each frame of an
image sequence, citing column 11, lines 27-55; that each frame
has at least one block, citing column 11, lines 27-55; that a
target frame bit rate for the frame is determined, citing, again,
column 11, lines 27-55, and Figure 14; and that the target frame
bit rate is allocated among the at least one block, once again
citing column 11, lines 27-55.
Appellants contend that Nickerson does not disclose the
allocation of bits to encode each frame, where a target block bit
rate is allocated “in accordance with a mean absolute difference
(Mad) of said block,” as claimed. Appellants contend that the
mean absolute difference serves an important function in that the
target frame rate (the available coding bit for a frame) is then
efficiently allocated based upon the mean absolute difference of
each block, such concept not being disclosed by Nickerson.
Rather, argue appellants, Nickerson teaches a “uniform bit
distribution over the macroblocks,” citing column 11, line 66-
column 12, line 3, so that Nickerson simply distributes the
specified coding bits for a frame evenly across all the
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007