Appeal No. 2004-0943
Application No. 09/460,930
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-7 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Moronaga, and claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Moronaga.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections.
The appellant’s independent claims, i.e., claims 1 and 5,
require deriving filter coefficients based on run-length codes of
a first encoded picture block and a neighboring encoded picture
block.
The examiner argues that “[f]ig. 2 of Moronaga ‘864 shows
the output (50), which is a run-length code, being inputted to
input terminal 10 (fig. 1)” (answer, page 5). Output
terminal (50) in Moronaga’s figure 2 is from Huffman coding
section 48 (col. 3, lines 51-58). Hence, that figure does not
disclose run-length coding.
The examiner argues that Moronaga discloses “obtaining the
run-length codes of each of the first and neighboring encoded
picture block (i.e.[,] fig. 2, col. 3, lines 36+)” (answer, page
3), and that Moronaga’s “filter coefficient select (26) derives
filter coefficients based on the run-length coded data (please
see figs. 1 and 2, and col. 3, lines 51+, where in [sic] Huffman
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007