Ex parte HURST et al. - Page 2

          Appeal No. 1998-2556                                                        
          Application 08/571,044                                                      

          Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                            
               1.   Apparatus for compressing an image representative                 
          video signal containing pixel data comprising:                              
               means for estimating noise in said video signal and                    
          providing an output;                                                        
               means for generating residues having lower and higher                  
          amplitude components, said residues representing differences                
          of pixel values between predicted pixel values and real pixel               
          values of a current frame of said video signal being                        
               nonlinear processing means, coupled to said generating                 
          means, for attenuating lower amplitude residues greater than                
          higher amplitude residues and providing processed residues at               
          an output, wherein a transfer function of said nonlinear                    
          processing means is responsive to said noise estimate; and                  
               transform means for transforming said processed residues               
          and providing a compressed video data output.                               
          The examiner relies on the following references:                            
          Zdepski et al. (Zdepski)      5,005,082          Apr. 02, 1991              
          Ishii et al. (Ishii)          5,051,826          Sep. 24, 1991              
          Stott et al. (Stott)          2,196,205          Apr. 20, 1988              
          (UK Application)                                                            
          Grotz et al. (Grotz)          0,346,636          Dec. 20, 1989              
          (European Application)                                                      
          The following rejections are on appeal before us:                           
          1. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                         
          112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out                
          and distinctly claim the invention.                                         


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007