Appeal No. 1997-0900
Application 08/371,039
modes is not defined in the claim. Furthermore, the signal
processing at the end of the claim is said to occur
“differently for different modes” where the word “differently”
is broadly recited but not explained as well. The examiner's
view as to the operation of the system of Grotz as modified by
Ishiguro in the examiner's answer is sufficient in our view to
have rendered obvious this broadly defined subject matter in
claim 5 on appeal. Again, since the subject matter of claim
11 has not been separately argued by appellants, the rejection
of this claim is also sustained.
We also reverse the rejection of dependent claims 6, 8, 9
and 10, all of which depend directly from claim 5, for the
reasons set forth at pages 8 and 9 of the brief. The feature
of requiring different transfer functions for different
compression processes of dependent claim 6 and different
transfer functions for different images blocks of claim 8 is
not taught or suggested among the collective teachings of
Grotz and Ishiguro for the
nonlinear elements shown in respective Figures 5 and 3.
Again, for reasons related to the initial reason we set forth
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007