Appeal No. 2002-1309 Page 5
Application No. 09/286,760
With respect to independent claims 1, 8 and 15, appellant
disputes the examiner’s position that Singhal teaches the claimed
method and apparatus. Appellant argues that Singhal fails to
show a single element of the invention. More particularly,
appellant argues that there is only a single quantization
disclosed in Singhal, and therefore, there can be no
requantization error propagated in Singhal. Appellant also
argues that the variance disclosed in Singhal relates to the
texture of a segment of the frame, and has nothing to do with a
requantization error. Appellant argues that the examiner has
misinterpreted the variances of Singhal based on a more generic
definition from the dictionary [brief, pages 7-13].
The examiner responds by asserting that the variances in
Singhal are used to determine the distortion level and that the
adjusting of the quantization step size in Singhal is directly
related to adjusting the distortion level. The examiner also
asserts that because Singhal uses a recursive methodology on the
quantization, a requantization takes place. Finally, the
examiner responds that the term variances in Singhal should be
interpreted broadly [answer, pages 4-9].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 8 and 15. Although we agree with the
examiner that the recursive process in Singhal can be considered
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007