Appeal No. 96-2304 Page 4
Application No. 08/136,252
the rejections because, in our view, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness,
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, respectively for the
following reasons.
In accordance with the instant claimed invention, first the
macroblock has already been produced by a coding mode and that
coding mode is determined. Then, one of a plurality of variable
length coding tables is selected “as a function of said coding
mode.” In Chen, as can be seen from Figure 2 thereof, frames to
be coded are broken into blocks of pixels and those blocks are
received at input 12. As stated at the top of column 5 of Chen,
“[d]epending on whether the frame is to be intra-frame coded [or
inter-frame coded], the pixel blocks are processed by” various
processors. Thus, the information appearing at input 12 in Chen
is not yet coded at all. Therefore, it is difficult to see how
the reference meets the limitation of “determining a coding mode
used to produce said macroblock.” Once Chen determines, in
whatever manner, which of processors 14, 16 or 18 is to be used,
depending on the type of coding to be employed, that particular
processor processes the data and the output of the processor is
fed to coder 20 for either variable length coding or fixed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007