Appeal No. 2004-0823
Application No. 09/555,391
it is not clear how to combine the DCT art of Mason and Mack with the wavelet art of Carnahan.
Appellants argue that interleaving of wavelet data is not the same as interleaving of DCT
coefficients. Appellants also argue that the segmentation of Carnahan is not the same as the
claimed segmentation [brief, page 30].
The examiner responds that wavelet coefficients are not claimed. The examiner reiterates
that the applied prior art teaches the claimed invention [answer, page 25]. Appellants respond
that the examiner ignored their argument that the combination of art is improper and their
argument related to progressive reconstruction [reply brief, page 16].
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 71-74 because we agree with
appellants that the examiner has failed to properly address appellants’ arguments with respect to
these claims. We also do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 75 for the
same reasons.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007