Appeal No. 2002-1632
Application No. 08/941,785
designating that the selected macroblock is encoded with the
difference, nor do we find the error flag in step S101 of Fujii
for indicating that the data belongs to an error block to meet
the claimed difference bit. Thus, Fujii does not anticipate
claim 1, nor the other independent claims which recite
determining a difference between the encoding macroblock and an
adjacent one as well as assigning a difference bit. Accordingly,
the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 22-26, 33-
37, 39-46, 48-55, 57-62, 64-69, 71, 72 and 74 over Fujii cannot
be sustained.
Turning to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 16-21 and
27-32, we note that each of these dependent claims recites
features in addition to those of their base claims 15 and 26.
The Examiner, in taking of the Official notice, has not provided
sufficient support to overcome the deficiencies of Fujii above
with respect to the rejection of base claims 15 and 26, and
therefore, has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 16-21 and 27-
32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Fujii is not sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007