Appeal No. 1999-2817
Application 08/819,587
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs for appellants’
positions and to the final rejection and answer for the
examiner’s positions.
OPINION
We reverse the § 102 rejection based upon Lee and affirm the
§ 102 rejection based upon Uramoto.
As to the rejection based on Lee, claim 8 requires in part
an encoded block representation of video data “further including
additional bits associated with the [encoded] block
representation.” It is these additional bits that are decoded
using a table according to claim 8.
The final rejection and answer take the position that the
feature of the additional bits is taught by column 7, lines 1-14
in Lee. We disagree. The discussion beginning at the bottom of
column 6 through the top of column 7 indicates that the
respective codeword for decoding purposes consists of 16 bit
codewords. This 16 bit codeword is used to code an entire block
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007