Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 Claim 98, which depends on claim 96 ("wherein said compressed or non-compressed
2 response comprises an animation sequence"), specifies that "said animation sequence has been
3 differentially compressed prior to receipt of said query." The rejection of claim 96 for
4 anticipation by Pocock has been reversed and the examiner does not contend that it would have
5 been obvious in view of Catros to replace Pocock's still-frame video images with an animated
6 sequence. The rejection of claim 98 for obviousness over Pocock in view of Catros is therefore
7 reversed.
8 (3) Claims 95 and 98 -- obvious over Pocock in view of Sugiyama?
9 We agree with Dr. Koopman (2d Koopman Decl. at 197, para. 432) that the examiner’s
10 alternative reliance (3d Action at 104-05, para. 45; Final Action at 258, para. 44) on Sugiyama’s
11 disclosure of inter-frame differential compression (col. 2, ll. 48-62) of video signals is misplaced
12 for the same reasons as his reliance on Catros’s inter-frame differential compression. More
13 particularly, Sugiyama explains that “in the first aspect of the present invention, transform
14 coefficients representative of video signals are coded and transmitted block by block only where
15 there exists a significant difference in transform coefficient between the current frame and the
16 preceding frame.” Sugiyama, col. 2, ll. 40-44. A further aspect of the invention that is
17 specifically relied on by the examiner is that “in place of coding and transmitting transform
18 coefficients, it is also preferable to calculate a difference in transform coefficient between a
19 current frame and a past frame in order to code and transmit only calculated transform
20 coefficient differences in response to the difference presence signal.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 49-54.
- 77 -
Page: Previous 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007