Appeal No. 1998-1322 Page 5
Application No. 08/454,068
Regarding claims 5, 11, 14, and 18, the appellants argue,
“The ‘amount of data’ as recited in applicants' claims is
quite different from the ‘amount of error’ described by
Krause.” (Appeal Br. at 11-12.) The examiner replies, “the
claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow.... In the present case, it is reasonable to
interpret the term ‘data’ as ‘error’ ....” (Examiner’s Answer
at 7.)
Claims 5 and 11 each specify in pertinent part the
following limitation: “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 ....” Similarly, claims 14 and 18 each specify
in pertinent part the following limitation: “selecting the one
of said frame-based predictive encoding and said field-based
predictive encoding which corresponds to the lesser of said
first and second amounts of data ....” In other words, the
claims each recite selecting between frame-based predictive
encoding and field-based predictive encoding based on which
encoding produces a smaller quantity of data.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007