Appeal No. 2002-0745
Application 08/893,379
parameters and does not disclose estimating coding parameters.
Appellants also argue that Murakami discloses a single stage
coding process and does not relate to tandem stage coding as
claimed. Appellants assert that since Murakami is directed to
single stage coding which provides the actual previous stage
coding, there would be no need to estimate a previous stage
coding as claimed [brief, pages 25-28]. The examiner responds
that Murakami teaches updating at least one past coding
parameter. The examiner notes that since the past coding
parameter was slightly wrong, the examiner considers it an
estimate within the meaning of claims 1 and 13. The examiner
asserts that it is the motion detection information which is
estimated and which constitutes the coding parameter [answer,
pages 5-6]. Appellants respond that Murakami only discloses
updating actual coding parameters and not estimating past coding
parameters. Appellants repeat the argument that past coding
parameters are available in Murakami so that there is no need to
estimate them as asserted by the examiner [first reply brief,
pages 6-7].
We will not sustain the examiner=s rejection of claims
1 and 13. We essentially agree with all of appellants= arguments
directed to the rejection of these claims. First, it must be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007