Appeal No. 2001-2307
Application No. 08/791,266
principally relies on material in columns 4 and 5 of Fandrianto in support of the 35
U.S.C. § 102 rejection of the claim, as does the examiner’s arguments in response to
the Brief (id. at 7-8).
Fandrianto recognized the need for programmable systems for video processing,
due to the variety of available compression algorithms. Col. 2, ll. 6-33. The disclosed
solution, described in columns 4 and 5 of the reference, includes programmable vision
processor 100 (Fig. 4), depicted as vision processor 10 in the environment of Figure 1,
for encoding or decoding previously compressed pictures. The “encoding and encoding
[sic; encoding and decoding] are done using a suitable standard, such as the MCPIC
standard” [described at col. 1, l. 58 - col. 2, l. 5]. Col. 4, ll. 20-23.
In a decoding operation, the host computer 4 receives a compressed YUV signal
and furnishes the signal to controller 12. Vision processor 10 converts the compressed
data into uncompressed data. Col. 4, ll. 48-59. In an encoding operation, the
uncompressed video data is furnished to controller 12, which converts the data to a
common YUV standard. Col. 5, ll. 1-7. Some encoding applications may require
additional preprocessing to render a format suitable for use by controller 12, such as
preprocessing that may be required for using the MCPIC compression algorithm.
Vision processor 10 ultimately converts the uncompressed data into compressed data.
Col. 5, ll. 8-39.
While Fandrianto teaches programmable processors for managing different
video signal formats, in our reading of the reference there is no disclosure of a
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007