Appeal 2007-2921
Application 09/951,452
before adding it to the compressed data. (App. Br., Claim Appendix.) We
find that Park’s disclosure reasonably teaches this limitation.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, we have found that
Park, similarly to the claimed invention, outputs quantized data including
quantization noise or error resulting from quantizing incoming digital signal
bands. (Finding 5.) We have also found that the multilayered bitstreams
generated in Park’s quantization include a base layer represented by the
MSBs, as well as enhancement layers represented by the LSBs that serve the
purpose of enhancing the quality of the signal portion represented by the
base layer. (Id.) We note that by the nature of the quantizer itself, as used
both in Appellant’s invention and in Park, upon being used to encode or
compress the incoming signal bands, the quantizer outputs the quantization
error along with the quantized signal. We thus agree with the Examiner that
the generated bitstreams6 include the quantization error, as well.
Next, we have found that Park discloses further encoding the
generated quantized data including the quantization noise to generate the
output bitstream. (Finding 6.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the
quantization error included in the quantized data is further compressed in the
bit packing portion. It follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting
independent claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 13 as being anticipated by Park.
6 [I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into
account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013