Appeal No. 2002-0764
Application No. 09/131,960
each coded frame to serve as representative of a subsequence of
multiple video frames.” Appellants argue (brief, pages 5 and 6)
that “element 202 does not, in fact, select a particular one of
the video frames, as required by the claims . . . ,” and that
“whereas element 116 of Fig. 1 of Golin most certainly codes a
video frame, it does not code a selected video frame as
representative of a subsequence of frames, as is required by the
instant claims.”
We agree with appellants’ arguments. Element 202 in Golin
(Figure 2) selects a target frame from the sequence of images for
a complexity analysis (column 5, lines 1 through 34), and this
value is then used in the second pass of the sequence of images
to thereby compress the complete sequence of images. In other
words, element 116 in Golin does not compress the target image
selected by element 202. Thus, the anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, 20, 21 and 23 is reversed because “Golin
describes no more than methods of computing a complexity measure
that it then uses in deciding how to code (i.e., “compress,” in
Golin’s terminology) each image -- not whether to code
(“compress”) a given image” (reply brief, page 5). The
obviousness rejections of claims 2 through 5, 8, 10 through 14,
16 through 19, 22 and 24 through 28 are reversed because the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007