Appeal No. 1999-1793
Application 08/161,798
Appellants argue that the second step of further bit allocation
in claim 5 is different than the second step of bit correction in
Nishiguchi (Br12; RBr11-12). Appellants argue that Nishiguchi
teaches only one bit allocation step that is amorphously connected
with a correction of the allocation and that Nishiguchi does not make
obvious two separate and distinct allocation steps (RBr7-8).
The Examiner disagrees (EA7), but we do not understand the
Examiner's rationale.
The arguments are directed to the existence of a two step
allocation process, an initial allocation followed by a further bit
allocation, rather than to the limitation of the further bit
allocation being based on psychoacoustic criteria. We have found
that Veldhuis discloses a two step process. Since the limitation
about further allocation "based on psychoacoustic criteria" is not
argued, it is not addressed. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iv).
- 13 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007