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:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007