Appeal No. 1998-1337
Application 08/351,102
means encoding image data in accordance with a second encoding
scheme as first encoding means encodes the image data.
Appellant also points out that claim 1, and similarly claim 9,
recite a control means receiving encoding image data from both
the first encoding means and the second encoding means and
select encoding image data from one of the first and second
encoding means. Appellant argues that these recitations make
it clear that first and second encoding means encode image
data in parallel and that the encoded data is received from
both first and second encoding means at the control means.
On page 9 of the answer, the Examiner responds to
these arguments by stating that concurrent encoding is not
recited in the claims. The Examiner does not dispute that
Kimura does not
in any way disclose concurrent encoding of image data using
more
than one encoder. The Examiner argues that the term "as" does
not necessarily mean "concurrently." The Examiner argues that
"as" can mean "to the same extent or degree."
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007