Appeal No. 2004-0823
Application No. 09/555,391
as claimed. Appellants also argue that the cited portions of Novik fail to disclose automatically
determining a desired compression ratio or allowed distortion from a windowing or viewing
parameter because the decision making in Novik is made by a human expert. With respect to
independent claim 61, appellants argue that Novik fails to disclose providing information related
to a desired diagnosis or the automatic selection by a computer of a desired amount of error
[brief, pages 31-33].
With respect to claim 60, the examiner responds that compression in Novik takes place at
the server, and everything at the server is done automatically. With respect to claim 61, the
examiner responds that all the information of Novik is directly related to the medical diagnosis
of the image [answer, pages 26-27].
Appellants respond that the examiner has ignored the “selecting” limitation of claim 60
and has failed to respond to appellants’ arguments. With respect to claim 61, appellants respond
that setting an error level and setting a compression ratio are not the same thing [reply brief, page
17].
We will not sustain the examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 60 and 61
or of claim 62 which depends from claim 61 for essentially the reasons argued by appellants in
the briefs. Although the compression per se in Novik is performed by a computer, the selection
of the amount of compression is made by the end user [column 8, lines 3-15]. The end user also
does not select a desired compression ratio as claimed, but instead, selects an image quality
factor Q which affects the compression factor. The selection made by the user in Novik is also
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007