Appeal No. 1998-2557
Application No. 08/335,550
2) appellant argues that Gerard has no teaching regarding the
use of the number of non-zero quantized transform signal
differences and the number of non-zero quantized transform
signals [brief, pages 5-7]. The examiner responds that
appellant’s arguments regarding the differences between an a
priori scheme and an a posteriori scheme are not relevant to
the scope of the claimed invention. The examiner also
responds that notwithstanding appellant’s arguments in the
brief, the claimed encoding scheme reads on the encoding
scheme disclosed by Gerard [answer, pages 5-8].
Although we agree with the examiner that appellant’s
first argument noted above is not limited to the invention as
claimed and is, therefore, not persuasive, we do not agree
with the examiner’s position in response to appellant’s second
argument noted above. It is clear that Gerard makes no
mention whatsoever of the number of non-zero quantized
transform signal differences, the number of non-zero quantized
transform signals, and the encoding of a block of data based
on the relationship of these numbers. Therefore, the
examiner’s rejection on anticipation is fundamentally based on
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007