Appeal No. 2003-1523
Application 09/432,426
fact that both the present invention and Watanabe disclose the
H.263 scheme does not lead to the conclusion that the present
invention and Watanabe disclose the same H.263 scheme (RBr3).
We agree with appellants. It appears that the examiner has
assumed that H.263 inherently provides for receiving channel
status information indicating an error profile of the
communication channel, so that the mention of H.263 in Watanabe
(col. 1, line 38) suggests receiving error profile information.
The examiner provides no evidence that the H.263 standard calls
for receiving error profile information. Since appellants are
arguing the limitation of "receiving channel status information
indicating an error profile of the communication channel," it is
clear that appellants do not think this is part of the H.263
standard. This alternative basis for the rejection is reversed.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claim 1 is
reversed.
Claim 31
Claim 31 recites a video decoding method, including the step
of "inputting a video bitstream to which redundancy information
has been adaptively added to data packets based on channel status
information indicating an error profile of the communication
channel" (emphasis added). For the reasons stated in connection
with claim 1, we find that Watanabe does not teach or suggest
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007