Appeal No. 2000-1501
Application No. 08/745,587
objects” since a signal which is encoded is representative of an “object.” Moreover, the
examiner points to blocks 4, 6 and 7 in Figure 1 of Endoh for a showing of an “object
encoder with an object library assigning a symbolic code to the generic object
identifying a generic object from a set” [answer-page 6].
Without a specific argument as to why Endoh is not suggesting “generic objects,”
as claimed, we are unconvinced of non-obviousness by appellant. Moreover, appellant
argues that Endoh does not teach or suggest “the use of generic object libraries in
order to improve compression without any correlation between the patterns and the
image information input into the system” [principal brief-page 5]. This argument is not
persuasive as it is based on limitations not appearing in the claims, i.e., that there is no
correlation between patterns, or objects, and the image information input into the
system.
In arguing claim 11, at page 6 of the principal brief, appellant again argues that
the objects in the instant claims have no predetermined relationship to the information
to be conveyed. Again, appellant has pointed to no specific claim language which sets
forth this argued limitation.
In the reply brief, e.g., page 5, appellant argues that the recitation of a “generic”
object inherently refers to objects that are generic, and therefore composed without
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007