Appeal 2007-1301
Application 09/924,322
to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).2
We affirm-in-part.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue turns on whether
the Chen reference teaches the claimed limitations, specifically the
limitation “if the decoding mode is of the “inter” type with no residue, the
conversion is performed by a copy of a converted pixel group of a preceding
image”.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants have invented a process for decoding and changing the format
of a stream of video data. The stream of images to be converted may
contain images wherein one image may be predicted from a preceding
image (called “intra mode”) or wherein one image is of a type for which
no prediction is used (called “inter mode”). (Specification 2:13; 3:35).
In inter mode, the predicted subsequent image block may be subtracted
from the current block, resulting in an image block called a residue.
(Specification 2:26). The residue thus shows the amount of change from
the preceding image block. (Specification 2:31).
2 Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments directed
separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in
each group, except as will be noted in this opinion. In the absence of a
separate argument with respect to those claims, they stand or fall with the
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013