Appeal No. 2000-2247
Application 08/137,189
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Krause et al. (Krause) 5,093,720 March 3, 1992
Claims 1 and 3-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Krause.
We refer to the Office action (Paper No. 32) of
2
February 24, 1998, the final rejection (Paper No. 35 ), and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 46) (pages referred to as "EA__")
for a statement of the Examiner's rejection, and to the brief
(Paper No. 45) (pages referred to as "Br__") and reply brief
(Paper No. 47) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of
Appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Both independent claims recite the coding of a minimum
pixel-by-pixel difference between a current block of a current
image to be transmitted and one block among four reconstructed
blocks of the same current image in the closest vicinity of the
current block. Thus, the coding is between a current block and a
reconstructed block of the same current image. This limitation
is dispositive of the anticipation rejection.
Krause discloses motion compensated coding of interlaced
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007