Ex Parte 5253341 et al - Page 76




               Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742                                                                                   
               Patent 5,253,341                                                                                                       

          1    spatial encoding, i.e., coding that takes into account only states of points which are                                 
          2    geographically adjacent to each point to be coded and belong to the same television frame as the                       
          3    point to be coded.  Id. at col. 3, ll. 41-44;  col. 1, ll. 39-45; col. 4, ll. 6-54.  Catros's improved                 
          4    encoding system, depicted in Figures 2-9, on which the examiner specifically relies, employs the                       
          5    coding method of Figure 1 and additional coding structures composed of predictors and                                  
          6    quantizers having different characteristics, each structure being employed as a function of the                        
          7    local environment of each image point to be coded, specifically whether the point being encoded                        
          8    is in an image contour areas or highly textured image area or in a uniform or slightly textured                        
          9    area.  Id. at col. 4, ll. 55-67.  The passage on which the examiner specifically relies explains that                  
         10    one of the coding structures is "[a]n inter-frame temporal or time predictor which takes into                          
         11    consideration the state of a number of points located in different frames."    Id. at col. 5, ll. 2-4.                 
         12            Dr. Koopman contends it would have been unobvious to use Catros's inter-frame                                  
         13    differential encoding in Pocock because such encoding is designed for use with successive                              
         14    television frames containing similar images, whereas Pocock transmits still-frame video images.                        
         15    2d Koopman Decl. at 196, para. 430.  The examiner's response (Final Action at 227-28, para.                            
         16    430; Answer at 216, para. 430) to paragraph 430 of Dr. Koopman's testimony fails to address the                        
         17    merits of this argument, which argument strikes us as having merit in the still-frame vis-à-vis                        
         18    movie context.  We are accordingly reversing the rejection of claim 95 for obviousness over                            
         19    Pocock in view of Catros.   52                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                     
                       52  The examiner has not argued, and we have therefore not considered, the obviousness                         
               of using the spatial (i.e., intra-frame) encoding technique described as prior art in Catros to                        
               compress Pocock’s still-frame video images.                                                                            
                                                            - 76 -                                                                    





Page:  Previous  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007