Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
OPINION
After conducting a thorough study of the disclosed invention
and that as reflected in the claims on appeal in conjunction with
the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner and
the detailed teachings and suggestions of the applied prior art,
we will sustain the rejection only as to claims 7, 16 to 18, 27
and 28. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of the remaining
claims 8 to 15 and 19 to 26.
From appellant’s brief and reply brief and the arguments
presented during oral hearing, it is apparent to us that the
focus of the dispute between the appellant and the examiner
concerns only the following language of representative
independent claim 7 on appeal:
determining a correlation between one
of said plurality of blocks of one of said
frames of video data and a corresponding
block of a preceding frame of video data;
setting a quantization width in accor-
dance with said correlation.
Our study of prior art Figure 1 of Tanaka in conjunction
with the respective four separate embodiments set forth in this
reference for Tanaka’s contribution beginning at Figure 3 through
Figure 6 leads us to conclude that the above referenced language
of claim 1 is necessarily met by the teachings and suggestions as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007