Appeal No. 2001-0343
Application 08/911,526
The examiner's initial position at page 3 of the final
rejection indicates that Canfield does not disclose this hybrid
quantization coding table having a first set of codewords of a
fixed bit length with a second set of codewords having a length
shorter than the first set, and also fails to teach the feature
of dynamically selecting between the codewords. In the final
rejection, the examiner relies upon Liu to cure these
deficiencies. However, beginning at the bottom of page 4 of the
answer, the examiner asserts that Canfield does teach the table
having the required first and second set of codewords.
According to Canfield's teachings beginning at the top of
column 3, the showing in Figure 1 of elements 10, 12, 14, 16, 18,
22 and 20 comprises conventional MPEG decoders. Elements 29 and
30 in effect therefore comprise structure corresponding to the
claimed recompressing of independent claim 1 on appeal or the
compressing capabilities of independent claim 6 on appeal. No
tables are taught to be used in association with the horizontal
data decimation block 29 in Figure 1 which is asserted to be
essentially a down sampling function discussed in the bottom
portions of both columns 5 and 6. Figures 9 and 10 show this
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007