Appeal No. 2004-0042
Application 09/368,380
also do not argue the inclusive rejection of their respective
dependent claims 22, 23, 25 and 26.
Appellants’ remarks in the Brief and Reply Brief as to the
second stated rejection, while correct, present an incomplete
consideration of the teachings in O’Rourke. The artisan would
well appreciate even from the study of the title of O’Rourke that
the invention of his disclosure relates to image and video
coding. There are clear teachings as we shall make clear to the
reader that O’Rourke is concerned with separate coding and
decoding functions. For example, the image decoder 200 in
Figure 2A has a portion of its flow operation set forth in
Figure 2B. The encoder filter 240 within the imaging coder 200
in Figure 2A is depicted in detail in Figure 3A, the functional
flow of which is shown in Figure 3B. All of these four figures
relate explicitly to an embodiment, the discussion of which
occurs between columns 4 and 7 of O’Rourke relating to still
image encoding.
The paragraph at column 3, lines 6-13, of this reference
sets forth the proper tone in which the artisan and reader is to
consider the teaching value of the encoding operation in the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007