Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
The arguments on page 4 of the reply brief are also
misplaced in the context of our explanation of our understanding
of the teachings and interrelationships in Tanaka between the
prior art Figure 1 quantization of a first quantization step-
size computing portion to each of the respective embodiments in
Figures 3 to 6. Appellant goes on to submit that even if one
were to construe Tanaka’s first quantization step-size as
corresponding to a previously coded block, such construction
must be limited to a correspondence with an immediately preceding
or adjacent block of coded video data. At oral hearing this
understanding was focused upon to point out that the corres-
pondence was with respect to an intermediately preceding block
of the same frame. This understanding is not consistent with our
understanding of the way each of the respective embodiments 1 to
4 operate in Figures 3 through 6 of Tanaka in conjunction with
the respective portions of prior art Figure 1.
Finally, we note that with respect to the Figure 6
embodiment, the discussion at column 32, lines 11 through 21
indicates that quantization occurs with respect to luminance
signal data of a corresponding color coding block. From the
artisan’s perspective, it is clear that for the overall system
of Figure 6 to operate with initial quantization capabilities
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007