Appeal No. 1999-2306
Application 08/639,284
sequence of I-frames would include these matrices.
We agree with appellants. As noted above, Lane
discloses nothing about how to extract the I-frames from the
normal bitstream and how to assemble these I-frames in
sequence. The admitted prior art in Lane does not indicate
that matrices are to be located and assembled in forming the
I-frames bitstream in the prior art. Therefore, we do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 23.
Claims 24 and 25 are separately argued by appellants.
Since these claims include the decoding and encoding steps as
discussed above with respect to claim 1, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 24 and 25.
Claim 28 is separately argued by appellants.
Specifically, appellants argue that Lane does not disclose the
recited use of a memory stack to store and retrieve markers
and coordinates in response to finding start codes for data
blocks, extension blocks and I-frame headers. The examiner
finds that the steps of claim 28 are inherently performed in
Lane. Appellants dispute this finding.
We agree with appellants. The disclosure of Lane does
not support the examiner’s findings of anticipation. Claim 28
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007