Appeal No. 1997-0900
Application 08/371,039
Additionally, we reverse the rejection of claim 12 for
the reasons set forth by appellants at pages 9 and 10 of the
brief relating to the language of claim 12 requiring that the
residues in multiple modes are formed into compressed output
data by the claimed motion compensated compression means. As
well explained by appellants in these pages of the brief,
Grotz does not teach or suggest that residues be formed in
output data in more than one mode. Similarly, Ishiguro, by
its title alone, only relates to interframe coding of video
signals.
For reasons similar to the last noted language of claim
12, the rejection of claims 1 and 3 must also be reversed. It
is noted that claim 3 is identical to the subject matter of
claim 1 with additional recitations as well. Claim 1 is
slightly more specific than the noted recitation in claim 12
since claim 1 recites that both the intraframe and interframe
coding residues are included in compressed output data by the
compression means.
Because claim 2 depends from reversed claim 3, the rejection
of claim 2 must also be reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007