Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
essentially what corresponds to the setting operation of the
above quoted portion of claim 1 to set the effective width of the
quantization portion 115 in Figure 3.
As noted earlier, we do not agree with the examiner’s
reasoning beginning at page 3 of the answer relating to the
quantization class information as corresponding to the key
information of the first clause reproduced of claim 7 above.
Notwithstanding this, the other positions advocated by the
examiner in the statement of the rejection relied upon in the
final rejection and the other reasoning in the responsive
arguments portion of the answer appear to be pertinent to meet
the issues raised by appellant in the brief.
Appellant appears to admit in the first sentence at the
top of page 8 of the brief that there is interframe coded data
present in a correlation sense between blocks in two successive
frames. The position that “the amount of code in code memory 74
in Tanaka merely represents that code that has not yet been
transmitted at a particular transmission rate at the time a block
of video data is to be quantized, which primarily depends on the
amount of code of one or more previous blocks of video data that
have already been quantized” at the top of page 8 of the brief is
misplaced. If this is so, it is also clear that because the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007