Appeal No. 2003-2057
Application No. 09/201,865
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14-18, 20, 23, 25, 27, 29, and 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai.
The examiner has indicated that claims 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28,
30-32, and 34-36 are drawn to allowable subject matter.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 12) and the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 19) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No.
18) and the Reply Brief (Paper No. 21) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims
which stand rejected.
OPINION
Instant claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent. The statement of the rejection
against those claims over Nagai points to portions of the reference that are deemed to
correspond to claimed features. Nagai is found to “not specifically disclose the
reversible variable length coding process is dependent from the variable length coded
results.” However, based on the teachings related to Figure 31 of the reference, the
examiner contends that “it is conceivable” that portions of the variable length coded
results are subsequently reversible variable length encoded. The examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to place the reversible VLC process after the VLC
process “so as to not discard relevant video information.” (Answer at 3-4.)
Appellants acknowledge that Nagai discloses reversible variable length coding.
However, appellants’ position is that Nagai’s teaching relates to reversible variable
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007