Appeal No. 96-0553
Application 08/020,993
of prior Figure 1, it must be on a corresponding block-by-block
basis with respect to the frame being transmitted to the current
frame being processed in the circuit in Figure 6. If this were
not so, corresponding color problems would have been clearly
evident to the viewer, a highly undesirable interpretation.
Since claim 18 corresponds in an apparatus format to method
claim 7, claim 18 also falls with our understanding of claim 7.
Similarly, since no arguments have been presented with respect to
dependent claims 16, 17, 27 and 28, they also fall with their
respect parent claims 7 and 18.
We reverse the rejection of all remaining claims as
indicated earlier. We generally agree with appellant’s arguments
in the brief and reply brief as they apply to the specific
recitation that the broad correlation of representative indepen-
dent claim 7 is specifically recited in representative dependent
claim 8 as being determined from a difference of powers between
the corresponding blocks of the current and preceding frame.
There is simply no such determination in any of the four embodi-
ments in Tanaka from what we can discern. The noted portions
the examiner relies upon clearly do not teach this as appellant
points out. As we noted earlier, the variance of each of the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007