Appeal No. 2002-0745
Application 08/893,379
noted that the invention of claims 1 and 13 relates to tandem
stage coding in which the stages execute the process separately
and sequentially. The coding process of Murakami does not relate
to tandem stage coding of this type. Second, the later stage
coding process must estimate at least one coding parameter used
in the previous stage coding process in accordance with picture
properties of the video signal coded by the previous stage coding
process. The process of Murakami uses the actual coding
parameters and measurements of motion in one frame of information
to code subsequent frames of information. Thus, as noted by
appellants, Murakami relies on actual data from previous
calculations to code subsequent frames of data. Although the
coding in Murakami may not be completely accurate, each stage of
calculation in Murakami relies on the actual data from a previous
stage of calculation rather than an estimate of a coding
parameter used in the previous stage of calculation. Therefore,
we agree with appellants that Murakami does not disclose every
feature recited in claims 1 and 13.
We now consider the various rejections under 35 U.S.C.
' 103. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. ' 103, it is
incumbent upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007