Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
anything, the prior art would suggest that the two types of
processing are mutually exclusive and not combinable.
In addition, regarding the obviousness rejection of claim
1 and its dependents, the examiner fails to point out in
either the Final Rejection or the Answer what elements are
relied upon for the claimed memories. Each claimed memory
stores a slice of data and the boundary area of an adjacent
slice of data. The examiner (Answer, page 5) explains that
boundary data is necessary for constructing a file in Retter,
since Retter uses "Restart" markers at the end of segments,
but never discusses the storage of such information. Boundary
data may be used for decoding the current stripe without being
stored with the data for the current slice. Further, the
Restart marker in Retter refers to the boundary of a segment
of the current slice and not to a portion of the adjacent
slice.
The examiner (Answer, page 6) contrasts appellant's
storage of adjacent motion data with Retter's "stor[age of]
boundary synchronization data for still picture
reconstruction." Thus, the examiner appears to admit that
Retter does not disclose storage of the boundary area of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007