Appeal No. 2001-0924
Application No. 08/885,415
Rather that repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and reply brief for
appellant’s positions and to the final rejection and answer for
the examiner’s positions.
OPINION
We reverse both stated rejections.
Each of independent claims 1, 9 and 11 on appeal recites in
some manner the use of a look-up table to provide an inverse
quantized code. The absence of this feature in Barrett is the
principal argument of appellant across these three independent
claims as set forth in the brief and reply brief. It is on this
basis that we reverse the rejection of each of the claims on
appeal.
Even if we were to agree with the examiner’s position that
the artisan would have in effect viewed the single table look-up
element 66 in Fig. 7 of Barrett as comprising the three recited
look-up tables in independent claims 1 and 9 on appeal and the
plural tables recited in independent claim 11 on appeal because
three separate outputs are provided, we must still reverse the
rejection of each of these independent claims on appeal because
we do not agree with the examiner’s assertion that the quantized
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007