Appeal No. 2003-2086
Application 09/089,290
With respect to the appellants’ argument concerning the operation
of the decoder 402, the examiner replies (answer, page 5) that:
. . . Civanlar et al discloses a decoder
402 for decoding one or more macroblocks
(e.g. 1, 4, 7) of a single frame 401 in at
least two different resolutions (e.g. 320 x
240 and 160 x 112). Macroblock 1 is decoded
at a resolution greater than macroblock 4.
We agree with the examiner’s rationale that the decoder
402 performs the claimed method. The portion of Civanlar
referenced by appellants (i.e., column 11, lines 50 through 60)
clearly explains that the decoder 402 decodes individual
macroblocks in the stream of macroblocks from the frame buffer
401. Thus, the anticipation rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
The anticipation rejection of claims 2 through 5 is likewise
sustained because appellants have chosen to let all of the claims
on appeal stand or fall as a single group (brief,
page 3).
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007