Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
[answer, page 4, lines 1-2]. Appellant argues “ ‘Ep’ in the
cited patent does not meet the limitation ‘quantization error
signal samples’ as recited in claim 1”. Rather, “Ep represents
either EMC or BMC”. See brief at pages 9-11. The Yamaguchi et
al reference defines EMC and BMC to each be a “motion
compensation prediction value” output from sections 200 and 201
respectively. We find that a value for motion compensation, in
which a motion vector is used to describe the translation of a
set of picture elements (pels) from one picture to another is not
the same as a sample of the quantization error where a picture is
quantized and then the quality of the quantization is determined.
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments are persuasive and we will
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Additionally, although not argued by Appellant, we take
notice of the fact that the processing of claim 1 is contingent
on “a measured quantization error for the quantization error
signals” exceeding a predetermine value. The feature of
Yamaguchi et al relied on to teach this feature is signal “Bq” of
figure 1. As can be seen in figure 1, Bq is in fact the
“quantized signal” output from quantizer 131, rather than an
error signal for that quantized signal.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007