Appeal No. 2000-0980
Application 08/763,733
data of each picture analyzed by analyzer 12 [column 14, lines
22-28]. We agree with the examiner that the data amount analyzer
of Okada constitutes an analysis of predetermined picture size
information because each of the I, P and B-pictures have a
corresponding known predetermined size range. There is nothing
in claim 10 that precludes a range of known predetermined values
from representing the picture size information. Therefore, we
agree with the examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, 13 and 14.
With respect to the claims of the second group as
represented by claim 1, appellant argues that Okada does not
disclose the claimed feature of skipping the reading of units of
picture data based on predetermined picture size information,
corresponding to the units of pictures, contained at a user data
region. Appellant argues that Okada must read out all data until
a picture header is detected even if the information is to be
skipped [brief, page 4]. The examiner responds that since each
of the I, P or B-pictures of Okada have a different data size,
and since Okada determines whether the incoming data is an I, P
or B-picture, then Okada is determining whether picture data is
to be skipped based on picture size information. The examiner
also responds that the size determination in Okada determines
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007