Appeal No. 1999-0089 Page 8
Application No. 08/454,076
Here, although Krause would have suggested selecting
between modes, four modes are selected between. More
specifically, the examiner admits, "Krause et al employs two
other modes (i.e. intra-frame prediction encoding with frame-
based orthogonal transformation and inter-frame prediction
with field-based orthogonal transformation) ...." (Examiner's
Answer at 6.) Because Krause requires selection between four
modes, we are not persuaded that teachings from the applied
prior art would appear to have suggested the limitations of
“selecting either a first or second mode of encoding, said
first mode being carried out by an intra-frame prediction
encoding technique and field-based orthogonal transformation
and said second mode being carried out by an inter-frame
prediction encoding technique and frame-based orthogonal
transformation ....” The examiner fails to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of claims 18, 38, 40, and 42 as obvious over Krause.
Next, we consider the argument and reply with respect to
claims 39 and 41.
Claims 39 and 41
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007