Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
“libraries” and points out that they “both provide for symbolic codes.” We agree with
appellant’s assessment that this portion of Toyokawa teaches a comparison of
tech/graphic dominant states and dither states from bit patterns, not generic features
being recognized or compared, as claimed. Further, we find no corresponding
decoding libraries, as claimed. While the examiner relies on column 1, lines 53-56, and
the first full paragraph of column 8, in Toyokawa, for this teaching, our review of the
cited portions indicates only a “reverse” sequence from the coding steps, i.e., decoding,
but this is a far cry from suggesting that any decoding sections in Toyokawa would have
a “second plurality of libraries corresponding to said plurality of encoder libraries...,” as
claimed.
With regard to Feng, we agree with the examiner that Feng suggests libraries at
the encoder and the decoder, but these “libraries,” or tables, include entries
corresponding to information patterns. While appellant argues that there is no
suggestion therein that these patterns represent generic objects, as intended in the
instant application, because “generic objects” in the library means that the library sets
may be unrelated to the information stream to be transmitted in a compressed form
through the system, we note that instant claim 1 does not require library sets which
“may be unrelated to the information stream to be transmitted in a compressed form.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007