Appeal No. 2001-2483
Application No. 09/040,561
b) producing a second DCT result by interpolation from the
first DCT result;
c) adding the second DCT result and the first DCT result;
d) comparing the added DCT result of step c with a DCT
result produced on the entire (n pixels * m lines) of
information, and
e) selecting an optimum coding based on the comparison
results in step d.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Yonemitsu et al. (Yonemitsu) 5,485,279 Jan. 16, 1996
Claims 2 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Yonemitsu.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 20,
mailed August 13, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 19,
filed June 18, 2001) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 21, filed
October 1, 2001) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art reference, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 2 through 4.
Appellant argues (Brief, page 4) that in the claimed
invention, a comparison is done after DCT is performed, whereas
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007