Ex Parte STONE et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2000-1498                                                        
          Application No. 08/721,623                                                  


          regions of the image, and then compresses the regions of the                
          image by a degree of data compression dependent on the image                
          activity value for each region.                                             
               Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it               
          reads as follows:                                                           
               1.    Video data compression apparatus comprising:                     
          (i)    means for detecting image activity values indicative                 
               of image activity for regions of an input image to be                  
               compressed;                                                            
          (ii)    means for filtering said detected image activity                    
               values to reduce the variation in image activity values                
               between groups of adjacent regions of said image; and                  
          (iii)    means for compressing said regions of said image by a              
               degree of data compression dependent on said image activity            
               value for each region.                                                 
               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          
          Sugiyama                      5,253,075           Oct. 12, 1993             
          Murakami et al. (Murakami)    5,543,848           Aug.  6, 1996             
                                   (effective filing date Nov. 24, 1993)              
          Russ, The Image Processing Handbook, pp. 165-66 (2nd Ed., Boca              
          Raton, FL, CRC Press, 1995).                                                
               Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 17 stand rejected under                   
          35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Sugiyama.                        
               Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being              
          unpatentable over Sugiyama in view of Murakami.                             



                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007