Appeal No. 2003-1523
Application 09/432,426
request, referring to column 11, lines 1-3 (EA3-4; EA5), and
states that "the channel information status indicating an error
profile is considered as the part in error that is detected by
the error check circuit (125 of fig. 2) of the decoding side"
(EA6). Therefore, the examiner interprets the "error" to be an
"error profile" and the retransmission request to be "channel
status information indicating an error profile of the
communication channel." Based on our claim interpretation, we
conclude that this is an error. An "error" is not an "error
profile" which characterizes the type and magnitude of the
errors. Furthermore, while a retransmission request may indicate
that an error occurred, it does not indicate anything about the
"error profile," i.e., about the type and magnitude of the
errors. Accordingly, this basis for the rejection is reversed.
The examiner also states (EA5):
It is well recognized [that] the H.263 encoder is well known
in the art for transmitting or receiving the channel status
information indicat[ing] the error profile from the decoder
(note the appellant/applicant's specification shows the
H.263 encoder (102 of fig. 1) that has been used to receive
the channel status information). According to the
appellant/applicant's specification, the H.263 encoder is
[sic, as] disclosed in Watanabe must have the same function
of receiving channel status information indicat[ing] an
error profile of the communication channel as well.
Appellants respond that many different techniques have been
proposed for H.263 error resilience, but no technique had yet
been adopted at the time of filing the application and, thus, the
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007