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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007