Appeal No. 2001-2575
Application No. 09/074,545
Claims 47 and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hirano in view of Normile, Kuroshima,
Murray and Pearlman.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 13, mailed May 4,
2001) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the appeal brief
(Paper No. 12, filed March 8, 2001) and the reply brief (Paper
No. 14, filed July 2, 2001) for Appellant’s arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 13-15, 18-
22, 25, 26, 30, 33 and 35, the Examiner relies on Hirano for
disclosing the claimed method and apparatus for compressing image
data except for transforming the format of the image and reducing
the chrominance data values (answer, pages 4 & 5). The Examiner
further relies on Normile for teaching a method for transforming
image data from a first format (RGB) to a luminance/chrominance
format (UVY) (answer, page 5) and on Kuroshima for making images
of various resolutions (answer, page 6) and reasons that the
combination makes more effective utilization of an image memory
(answer, page 6).
Appellant argues that there is no reason to apply the
compression of video images of Normile to the search techniques
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007