Ex parte IGARASHI et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1998-1322                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 08/454,068                                                  


               Claim 5, which is representative for our purposes,                     
          follows:                                                                    
                    5.   A picture signal decoding method comprising                  
               the steps of:                                                          
                    receiving an encoded signal including an encoded                  
               picture and a header indicating which of frame-based                   
               predictive encoding and field-based predictive                         
               encoding was used to encode said encoded picture,                      
               said encoded picture being encoded with the one of                     
               said frame-based predictive encoding and said field-                   
               based predictive encoding which produces the lesser                    
               amount of data;                                                        
                    frame-based predictively decoding said encoded                    
               picture when said header indicates that said encoded                   
               picture was encoded using frame-based predictive                       
               encoding; and                                                          
                    field-based predictively decoding said encoded                    
               picture when said header indicates that said encoded                   
               picture was encoded using field-based predictive                       
               encoding.                                                              
               The reference relied on in rejecting the claims follows:               
          Krause et al.             5,091,782               Feb. 25,                  
          1992.                                                                       
          (Krause)                                                                    


               Claims 5, 11, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                
           102(b) as anticipated by Krause.  Rather than repeat the                  
          arguments of the appellants or examiner in toto, we refer the               
          reader to the briefs and answers for the respective details                 
          thereof.                                                                    








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007