Appeal No. 1999-0487
Application No. 08/554,425
[brief, pages 5-6].
The examiner’s response indicates that the examiner
considers the invention to be nothing more than a recognition
that the quantization factor in a JPEG compression is related
to the compression ratio. According to the examiner, the
method claimed by appellant would work on any image data
despite appellant’s assertions to the contrary. The examiner
also argues that appellant’s invention is not limited to
angiographic image sequences despite the specific recitation
of such sequences in claims 1 and 7 [answer, pages 8-13].
The examiner’s finding that claims 1 and 7 are not
limited to angiographic image sequences is clearly in error.
Claims 1 and 7 specifically recite that the method is applied
to “image data from a sequence of angiographic images made up
of frames of video data.” Although this recitation appears in
what the examiner calls the preamble of the claim, and is not
binding
according to the examiner, the steps of claims 1 and 7 refer
to “sampling N frames of video data from the sequence” and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007