Appeal No. 1999-2051
Application No. 08/716,615
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Nov. 12, 1997) and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed Dec. 7, 1998) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (filed Sep.
14, 1998) and the Reply Brief (filed Feb. 8, 1999) for appellant's position with respect to
the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
In response to the section 102 rejection, appellant argues, inter alia, that a “variation
value correction frame determination means” as set forth in instant claim 1 is not disclosed
by Gonzales. The examiner, in the Answer, refers back to the rejection mailed May 27,
1997 for the statement of the rejection. For the “variation value correction frame
determination means” set forth in instant claim 1, the examiner refers to column 17, lines 5
through 53 of Gonzales.
The selected portion of Gonzales describes determination of total difficulty factor,
D , for three types of pictures. Gonzales, at column 3, lines 37 through 51 describes the
K
three types of pictures, as defined by the respective compression method used, that may
appear within a group of pictures (GOP). I-pictures are compressed independently of any
other picture, and any group of pictures must start with an I-picture. P-pictures are
predictively motion compensated, and B-pictures are bidirectionally motion-compensated
pictures.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007