Appeal No. 2002-1309 Page 6
Application No. 09/286,760
to carry out a requantization of a block of transform
coefficients within a current frame of encoded images as claimed,
we do not agree with the examiner that the variances of Singhal
constitute a requantization error which is propagated when the
current frame is used as a reference frame as claimed. The
examiner’s use of a dictionary to define the variances of Singhal
is misplaced. It is the terms of the claims which are
interpreted broadly. Terms in a prior art reference must be
interpreted in the manner disclosed in the reference. As argued
by appellant, the variances in Singhal are defined therein as
relating to the texture of the image. They have nothing to do
with a requantization error which is to be propagated if the
current frame is used as a reference frame. We are unable to
find any support within the confines of the Singhal reference to
support the examiner’s contention that the variances of Singhal
are equivalent to the requantization error as recited in
appellant’s claims on appeal. Therefore, the examiner’s findings
of obviousness are based on an erroneous interpretation of the
teachings of Singhal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007