Appeal No. 2001-0343
Application 08/911,526
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Canfield in
view of Liu.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to appellants' briefs for their
positions and to the final rejection and answer for the
examiner's positions.
OPINION
We reverse.
Whereas independent method claim 1 requires a hybrid
quantization coding table for recompressing purposes, the system
of claim 6 does not specifically recite the quantization coding
table as being a hybrid-type and merely recites it as a
compression table. Notwithstanding these considerations, both
claims clearly recite that the table must include a first
codeword set and a second codeword set, where the second codeword
set is of a shorter length than the first length of the first
codeword set.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007