Ex Parte SCHULTZ et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2003-0739                                                        
          Application No. 09/319,763                                                  

          recompressed by a recompression network.  The recompression                 
          network is selectively inhibited when the subsampling network is            
          activated.                                                                  
               Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as                  
          follows:                                                                    
               1. In a system for processing a datastream of MPEG coded               
               image representative data, an MPEG compatible signal                   
               processing system comprising:                                          
               a decompressor for decompressing MPEG compressed data to               
               produce decompressed data;                                             
               a data reduction network for data-reducing said decompressed           
               data to produce data-reduced information, said data                    
               reduction network comprising a recompression network and a             
               subsampling network;                                                   
               an image data processor responsive to said data-reduced                
               information; and                                                       
               a control network for inhibiting said recompression network            
               selectively when said subsampling network is activated.                
               The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                        
          Canfield et al. (Canfield)    5,825,424           Oct. 20, 1998             
                                                  (filed Jun. 19, 1996)               
               Claims 1-8 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)             
          as being unpatentable over Canfield.                                        
               Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the              
          Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 8) and Answer           
          (Paper No. 9) for the respective details.                                   
                                         -2-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007