Appeal No. 2000-0193 Application No. 08/627,010 claims 1 and 12, and thus could not have suggested the claim limitations as purported by the rejection. If an object is positioned differently in a subsequent frame -- that is, the object is in motion -- Tsukagoshi's suggested motion adaptive quantization would lead to the determination of a different quantization for the object with respect to the remainder of the image, rather than using the modified compression ratio set in the first frame, based upon the importance of an area in that first frame. Appellants' claims require that the same "modified compression ratio" be applied to the object, based upon the importance of an area in the first frame, even if the object is positioned differently in the second (subsequent) frame. We therefore cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 or 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ligtenberg and Tsukagoshi. Nor can we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 21, and 22, depending therefrom. The additional rejections, relying on the further teachings of Graf, Mack, and Scorse also cannot be sustained. The references of Graf, Mack, and Scorse do not remedy the deficiencies we have identified in the rejection applied against base claim 1 or 12. -5-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007