Ex parte LAVALLEE - Page 5

          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                 

          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."                               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007