Ex Parte LIANG et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2003-0949                                                        
          Application 09/164,517                                                      

          differing contexts and coefficient types from differing portions            
          of the image. (Appellants’ brief, page 2)                                   
               Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention and is              
          reproduced as follows:                                                      
               1.  A method of encoding an image, comprising the steps of:            
                    (a) decomposing an image into bitplanes; and                      
                    (b) arithmetic encoding the bitplanes with a context              
          model from the neighboring bits in a bitplane and previous bits             
          at the location in previous bitplanes.                                      

                                     References                                       
               The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:               
               Boliek et al (Boliek)    6,141,446      Oct. 31, 2000                  
          (filed September 30, 1997)                                                  
               Rabbani et al (Rabbani) 5,442,458       Aug. 15, 1995                  
               Healey et al (Healey)    5,357,250      Oct. 18, 1994                  
               Oda                      5,703,646      Dec. 30, 1997                  
          (filed December 19, 1996)                                                   
               Rust                     5,901,251      May   4, 1999                  
          (filed March 18, 1997)                                                      
                                 Rejections At Issue                                  
               Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                 
          obvious over the combination of Boliek and Rabbani.                         
               Claims 2-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being               
          obvious over the combination of Boliek, Rabbani and Healey.                 
               Claims 4-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being               

                                          2                                           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007