Appeal No. 2002-1133
Application No. 09/186,754
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 9, mailed Aug. 28, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 8, filed Aug. 3, 2001) for appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellant argues that the claimed invention is directed to a “preprocessor for a
compression encoder, i.e., manipulation of the input video signal before being input to
the compression encoder.” (See brief at page 4.) Appellant argues that the spatial shift
of the present invention has both an integer value and a high precision fractional value
wherein only the high precision fractional value is used in the preprocessing of the shift.
(See brief at page 4.) Appellant argues that this use of the high precision fractional
value only distinguishes the preprocessing of the claimed invention from the
compression encoder of Girod, which uses both the integer value and the high precision
fractional value. (See brief at page 4.)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007