Appeal No. 2002-1777 Page 4
Application No. 08/953,219
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellants in toto, we
address the two points of contention therebetween. First, the examiner makes the
following assertions.
Sotheran teaches a method of configuring data . . . comprising:
reorganizing a plurality of data sections into a reversible pattern of
recognized data (see figure 85 (note that two P-frames are reorganized
into a reversible pattern (These two P-frames are moved way from I-frame
in comparing; with the original position therefore, considered as reversible
pattern)); and col. 48, lines 42-45 and 64-67), for at least one of the data
section that is reorganized (see figure 85. Note that two P-frames are
organized), the reorganizing of the data section being performed
independent of a temporal decoding relationship with any of the other
data sections (see col. 47, lines 15-20; and col. 48, lines 42-45 and 64-67.
Note that temporal decoder as shown in the cited passages does not
decode JPEG-encoded data, temporal decoder does reorganize or
reorder MPEG encoded data. Thus, JPEG-encoded data is considered to
be applicant's any of the other data section. Therefore, these cited
passages meets claimed language). . . .
(Examiner's Answer at 3-4.) The appellants argue, "although all of the data types are
compressed by the system of Sotheran, for all but one of the data types (MPEG), there
are not data sections that are reorganized, and, for the one data type (MPEG) that
includes data sections that are reorganized, there is not a single data section that is
reorganized independent of a temporal decoding relationship between the data section
and any other data sections." (Reply Br. at 4-5.)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007