Appeal No. 2001-0924
Application No. 08/885,415
predictor error 73 outputted from look-up table 66 in Fig. 7 in
conjunction with the predictor error 69 and the respective
showing in Fig. 8 in effect comprise something the same as the
claimed inverse quantized code.
According to the teachings of Fig. 1 at the bottom of column
7 and the bulk of the corresponding teachings of Figs. 7 and 8 at
column 8 of Barrett, we do not agree with the examiner’s views
that the claimed inverse quantized code would have been seen by
the artisan as effectively taught or suggested at this location
of Barrett. In fact, from our study of Barrett, we agree with
appellant’s views expressed at page 8 of the principal brief on
appeal that Barrett does not even mention or suggest using an
inverse quantized code. Correspondingly, we are unpersuaded by
the examiner’s views of equivalence expressed at pages 4 through
7 of the responsive arguments portion of the answer. As
explained in the paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8 of the
specification as filed and in the whole paragraph at the middle
of page 8, appellant utilizes an inverse quantized code instead
of a quantized value since the inverse quantized code facilitates
data compression. Beyond the examiner’s arguments noted earlier,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007