Appeal No. 1999-2306
Application 08/639,284
teaches nothing about performing any further operations on the
assembled I-frames. As noted above, the decoding and encoding
steps of Lane which are relied on by the examiner have nothing
to do with this prior art technique of assembling I-frames.
The fact that encoding and decoding steps were known in a
different embodiment does not anticipate applying these steps
to the prior art embodiment of Lane.
Since we find that the decoding and encoding steps of
Lane are not applicable to the prior art I-frames sequencing
disclosed by Lane, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 25 and 26. Since
we have not sustained the rejection with respect to
independent claims 1, 9, 17 and 26, we also do not sustain the
anticipation rejection with respect to dependent claims 3, 6,
7, 11, 14, 15 and 27.
We now consider independent claim 18. Claim 18 is the
same as claim 1 except that the final decoding and encoding
steps are replaced by the step of storing the assembled
bitstream. Appellants’ only additional argument with respect
to claim 18 is that Lane does not teach that the assembled
bitstream is stored. As discussed above, however, we agree
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007