Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
that the disclosure of Yamaguchi et al does not fully meet the
invention as recited in claims 11-13, and 25-27. Accordingly, we
reverse.
With respect to independent claim 11, the Examiner has
indicated how he finds anticipation of the claims on appeal
[answer, page 4, lines 13-19 and page 5, lines 1-3]. The
Examiner deems signal 31 to meet the “previous signal samples
were subtracted during coding” limitation of claim 11 [answer,
page 4, lines 17-18]. Appellant argues “nothing is subtracted
from Ec”. The Yamaguchi et al reference at figure 1 clearly
teaches that indeed the signal Ec is formed by a subtraction at
node 120 as can be seen by the minus symbol on the bottom input
to node 120. We find that Examiner’s argument to be persuasive.
However, the Examiner also deems the processing of signal 22
with signal 31 to meet the overall limitations of claim 11.
We take notice of the fact that the summing of previous signal
samples in claim 11 is contingent on the previous signal samples
being “for this layer”. As can be seen in figure 4, signal 22 is
for the “enhancement layer” and signal 31 is for the “base
layer.” Thus, these signal are “not” signals samples for the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007