Appeal No. 1998-1322 Page 7
Application No. 08/454,068
inconsistency between this conclusion and the rule that the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) should give claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution.
“The operative word is reasonable: the PTO has no such
obligation regarding unreasonable interpretations.”
Genentech, Inc. v. Wellcome Found. Ltd., 29 F.3d 1555, 1564
n.22, 31 USPQ2d 1161, 1168 n.22 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Because Krause bases selection on the accuracy of data,
we are not persuaded that the reference discloses the claimed
limitation of “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”
or the claimed limitation of “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 ....” The absence of this disclosure
negates anticipation. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of
claims 5, 11, 14, and 18 as anticipated by Krause.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007