Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application No. 08/554,425
together as a first group while claims 5 and 8 stand or fall
together as a second group [brief, page 3]. The examiner
makes a single rejection which is applied against each of
claims 1, 5, 7 and 8.
The examiner essentially finds that Mita teaches the
claimed invention except that Mita uses a code amount or
relative code amount as a compression factor rather than the
claimed compression ratio. The examiner asserts that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to use a compression ratio
instead of a code amount or relative code amount. The
examiner also cites Yonekawa as teaching use of a compression
ratio to determine quantization values [answer, pages 4-5].
With respect to claims 1 and 7, appellant notes that
these claims recite a sequence of angiographic images made up
of frames
of video data, and appellant argues that neither Mita nor
Yonekawa relates to angiography image sequences. Appellant
also argues that neither reference teaches the concept of
using linear interpolation to automatically determine
quantization factors to achieve a desired compression ratio
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007