Appeal No. 1999-2817
Application 08/819,587
degree of acceptability in the claim is predicated on appellants’
disclosed use of a threshold, yet it is much more broadly recited
in claim 1 and its corresponding claim 13 on appeal. The noted
portions of Uramoto appear to indicate to us that a degree of
acceptability or nonacceptability or some sort of variable
threshold is taught in this reference. The examiner’s relied
upon discussion with respect to Figure 44 at column 27 builds
upon and varies the structural embodiment initially set forth in
Figure 43 for this comparator 3 in Figure 1.
Since Uramoto does appear to us to teach some degree of
thresholding or acceptability, we agree with the examiner’s views
expressed principally in the answer beginning at page 6. As to
appellants’ additional views in the principal brief on appeal
that Uramoto appears to teach compression in any case, we note
that claim 1 does not explicitly exclude the capability of
estimating and adaptively compressing “acceptable” distances
between all uncompressed current blocks and adjacent blocks. As
to appellants’ arguments with respect to dependent claims 2, 3,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007