Court Opinions
State Laws
|
Ex Parte HARTUNG et al - Page 2
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2003 > Ex Parte HARTUNG et al - Page 2
Appeal No. 2002-0764
Application No. 09/131,960
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A method of coding a video signal, the video signal
comprising a sequence of video frames, the sequence of video
frames comprising a sequence of subsequences of said video
frames, the method comprising the steps of:
determining a coding quality measure for one or more of the
video frames comprised in one of said subsequences of said video
frames;
selecting a particular one of the video frames comprised in
said one of said subsequences of said video frames, the selection
based on the coding quality measure therefor; and
coding the selected video frame as representative of said
one of said subsequences of said video frames.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Huelsman 4,183,087 Jan. 8, 1980
Gonzales et al. (Gonzales) 5,231,484 July 27, 1993
Golin 5,265,180 Nov. 23, 1993
Schuster et al. (Schuster) 5,778,192 July 7, 1998
(filed Oct . 26, 1995)
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, 20, 21 and 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Golin.
Claims 2 through 4, 8, 10, 16 through 18, 22 and 24 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Golin.
Claims 5 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Golin in view of Schuster.
2
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
|
