Appeal No. 1999-0089 Page 10
Application No. 08/454,076
Krause would have suggested the limitations. The
appellants admit, "Krause ... provide[s] four possible modes,
two of which correspond to Appellants' two modes." (Reply Br.
at 7.) More specifically, they make the following admission.
Krause's encoding operation may properly be
described as providing four encoding modes: a "first
mode" consisting of intra-frame prediction encoding
and field-based orthogonal transformation (which,
for the purpose of the present discussion, is
assumed to be the same as Appellants' claimed "first
mode"); a "second mode" consisting of inter-frame
prediction encoding and frame-based orthogonal
transformation (which, for the purpose of the
present discussion, is assumed to be the same as
Appellants' claimed "second mode"); a "third mode"
consisting of intra-frame prediction encoding and
frame-based orthogonal transformation; and a "fourth
mode" consisting of inter-frame prediction encoding
and field-based orthogonal transformation.
(Id. at 6.)
Because Krause teaches two modes that correspond to the
appellants' two modes, we are persuaded that teachings from
the applied prior art would appear to have suggested the
limitations of “an encoded signal ... encoded in a first or
second mode, said first mode having been carried out by intra-
frame predictive encoding and field-based orthogonal
transformation and said second mode having been carried out
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007