Appeal No. 2004-1628
Application 10/254,720
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§102 (b) since Singhal does not teach each and every claim limitation.
Turning to independent claim 7, directed to decoding, the examiner contends that this
claim is anticipated by Kawauchi.
Similar to the issue regarding independent claim 1, the issue here is whether Kawauchi
teaches the claimed step of processing an encoding of at least one texture area to “determine a
texture type that is associated with the at least one texture area.”
In arguing that Kawauchi does not teach this claim limitation, appellant discusses column
14, lines 35-57, of Kawauchi and contends that, based on these portions of the reference,
Kawauchi only discloses reproducing texture area data, but not how to “determine a texture type
that is associated with at least one texture area.”
However, we point to column 9, lines 55-67, as the examiner did at page 8 of the answer,
wherein Kawauchi discloses that
[t]exture areas having the same first frequency spectrum pattern are put
into a first group. Further, texture areas having the same second frequency
spectrum pattern are put into a second group . . . .
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007