Appeal No. 2006-2658
Application No. 09/790,334
independent claims 1 and 14-17 require compressing the one or
more video streams “based on a task that required the
compression.”
Still further, appellants argue that Sato teaches selecting
a frame rate (referring to column 4, lines 9-19), with a frame
rate being only a parameter of a compression process, so that
selecting a frame rate is not selecting a compression process
(supplemental brief-page 4).
Appellants also contend that Sato teaches selecting such
compression encoding means based on the information exchange with
the communication partner and/or on the status of the
communication path (column 15, lines 48-50) and so Sato cannot
satisfy the claimed requirement of selecting a compression
process based on a task.
The examiner’s response to these arguments is at pages 10-11
of the answer. Therein, the examiner notes that in claim 2,
appellants define a “task” as one or more of “surveillance,
diagnosis, inspection, navigation, objection localization,
control, and maintenance” (emphasis added). The examiner further
notes that appellants define “semantic compression processes” in
claim 4, as including “Motion Picture Experts Group compression
standards, M-JPEG, M-JBIG, H.261, H.323…”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007