Appeal No. 1997-0900
Application 08/371,039
On the other hand, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 on
appeal. Despite the language at the beginning of the claim
reciting a multiple mode motion compensated compression
apparatus, there is only one recited mode in the body of the
claim, where it is recited at the end of claim 7 that the
transfer function of the nonlinear processing means is
responsive only to “a mode” of the compression apparatus.
Because appellants' arguments at pages 9 and 10 of the brief
relating to claim 12 admit that in Grotz's circuit that
residues are formed into compressed output data in only one
mode, the subject matter of claim 7 otherwise obviously would
have been met. There are also no arguments presented in the
brief directed to claim 7 anyway.
We also sustain the rejection of claim 5 for similar
reasons. Claim 5 is not separately argued as well in the
brief. In contrast to the subject matter of independent
claims 1 and 3 on appeal, there is no recitation in this claim
of intraframe and interframe coding. Similarly, the language
at the end of claim 5 relating to “different modes” is not
distinguished since the meaning or context of the different
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007