Appeal No. 2000-0128
Application 08/590,722
Figure 10 shows a corresponding bit stream, where the block header portion 1022
appears to be further detailed in Figures 14 through 16. The corresponding discussion
associated with these figures does not detail how the communication generated by the
encoder occurs in the encoder to identify which areas of the image to postfilter in the
decoder. In any event, our study of the reference leads us to conclude that the generation
of an apparent postfilter parameter in Normile does not appear to be determined based
on the signal-to-noise ratio between the encoded video images and the input or uncoded
video image as required by the claims on appeal. The reference simply does not explain
in detail how the SNR operations discussed in the initial lines of column 7 and at the end of
column 8 take place within the confines of the encoding and decoding operations in the
reference as a whole.
In order for us to sustain the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we would
need to resort to speculation or unfounded assumptions to supply deficiencies in the
factual basis of the rejections. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178
(CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968), reh’g denied, 390 U.S. 1000 (1968).
This, we decline to do.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007