Appeal No. 2003-1419
Application No. 09/001,199
Appellant argues on page 8 of the brief that the combination of Boyce and
Matthews does not teach or suggest “a method for decoding variable length
encoded digital video data or an apparatus for performing same that includes
discarding from the digital video data only those macroblocks not associated with
the particular picture regions defined by the standard.” Further, on pages 9 and
10 of the brief, the appellant identifies the limitations of claims 1, 6, 15 and 20,
which claim the feature of discarding from the digital video data only those
macroblocks not associated with a picture region.
We concur with the appellant. We find that each of the independent
claims includes a limitation that macroblocks not associated with a picture region
are discarded, and as discussed infra we find that the combination of Boyce and
Matthews does not teach this limitation.
In the statement of the rejection, on page 4 of the answer, the examiner
states that Boyce does not teach discarding macroblocks not associated with a
picture region. We agree.
The examiner argues, on page 7 of the answer, that Boyce teaches
reducing the data in the video image to limit the size of the buffer. Further, the
examiner argues:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007