Appeal No. 2001-0343
Application 08/911,526
operations. The examiner's reasoning as to this correspondence
is not developed in a persuasive manner based upon the teachings
and suggestions in Liu. Therefore, it is highly problematic even
if we agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to
the artisan to have used the decoding environment of Liu as a
teaching for an encoding environment in the corresponding
structure of Canfield. We are left with no evidentiary basis in
effect to support the examiner's reasoning as to the particulars
of the combination.
Lastly we turn to the subject matter of independent claim 10
on appeal, which does not recite explicitly any form of a table
arrangement, either a hybrid quantization coding table of
independent claim 1 or a compression table of claim 6.
Significantly, however, this claim 10 does recite the feature of
"dynamically selecting between codewords of different length
associated with first and second codewords sets." As is evident
from our earlier discussion in this opinion regarding the
specific teachings and suggestions of both references relied
upon, even if they were considered collectively in the best light
toward the examiner's position, this feature cannot be met as
well.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007