Appeal No. 2002-0716
Application 09/092,255
See pages 22 and 23 of the Brief. Appellants argue that the term
“inter-” is defined as a prefix for between, usually between
external and internal systems, or within the context of the
present invention, between frames. The term “interframe”
encoding is commonly understood in the relevant art to mean
coding techniques wherein information from one image frame is
used to encode another image frame. Thus, interframe encoding
specifically contemplates encoding techniques using information
between image frames, such as a macroblock in a second image
frame being derived as a predicted macroblock from the first
information frame. See page 12 of the brief.
The Examiner agrees that Heyl and Tanaka do not teach
interframe coding. See page 4 of the answer. The Examiner
argues that Naimpally teaches interframe coding in column 5,
lines 8 through 16.
In response, Appellants point out that the Examiner’s
reliance on column 5, lines 8 through 16, of Naimpally fails to
support a teaching of interframe coding. Appellants point out
that Naimpally specifically teaches that encoder 314 uses
“intracoding.” Appellants argue that intracoding is coding
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007