Appeal No. 1997-0900
Application 08/371,039
forth at pages 9 and 10 of the brief. Like appellants, we do
not agree with the examiner's view that the last recited means
of claim 12 relating to the first and second compression modes
would have been reasonably taught or suggested to the artisan
within
35 U.S.C. § 103 among the collective teachings and suggestions
of Grotz and Ishiguro. This feature relates to the embodiment
shown
in Figure 4 with the adder 52 and switch 2 in part as
explained at page 7 of the brief. The language of this
portion of claim 12 requires some kind of switching element
inherently to switch between compression modes to apply only
residues processed by
the nonlinear element in one mode and apply a combination of
residues and predictive signals from the motion compensated
compression means to the same motion compensation compression
means in a second compression mode, where neither the
structure of Ishiguro's Figure 3 nor the structure of Grotz's
Figure 5 would have taught or suggested to the artisan this
kind of approach.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007