Appeal No. 2001-2013
Application No. 08/869,592
20, filed June 29, 2000) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 22, filed
November 29, 2000) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse both the anticipation rejection of claims 12 and 13
and also the obviousness rejection of claims 3 through 5, 10, and
11.
Claim 12 recites "means for adding a pixel block number
corresponding to said shuffle address to each of said shuffled
data," and "means for adding said DCT block number to said DCT
data so that said DCT block number will be utilized in a
succeeding signal processing circuit." The examiner, referring
to Smidth, column 9, line 60-column 11, line 15, asserts (Answer,
page 5) that Smidth assigns a block number indicia to each
shuffled block "so that it can be identified and manipulated by
the shuffling equation defining the algorithm." The examiner
(Answer, page 6) points to Smidth's disclosure of an output image
block number c and contends that such disclosure indicates that
the block number is "output to the deshuffling circuit."
Claim 12, however, requires that the block number be added
to the data (to the shuffled data and subsequently to the DCT
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007