Ex Parte UEDA - Page 1




            The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for            
            publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.                                    

                                                                           Paper No. 26               
                          UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                                   
                                           ____________                                               
                              BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                                      
                                        AND INTERFERENCES                                             
                                           ____________                                               
                                       Ex parte MAMORU UEDA                                           
                                           ____________                                               
                                       Appeal No. 2001-2013                                           
                                   Application No. 08/869,592                                         
                                           ____________                                               
                                              ON BRIEF                                                
                                           ____________                                               
            Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, and GROSS, Administrative Patent                               
            Judges.                                                                                   
            GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.                                                       



                                        DECISION ON APPEAL                                            
                 This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final                               
            rejection of claims 3 through 5 and 10 through 13, which are all                          
            of the claims pending in this application.  Claims 1, 2, and 6                            
            through 9 have been canceled.                                                             
                 Appellant's invention relates to a signal processing                                 
            apparatus which divides an input signal into a plurality of pixel                         
            blocks, shuffles the blocks, adds header information including                            
            timing and shuffling data to the shuffled blocks, and performs a                          
            DCT process on the shuffled blocks.  Claim 10 is illustrative of                          
            the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:                                           







Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007