Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742
Patent 5,253,341
1 differential encoding on the motion picture signals. 3d Action at 103, para. 42; Final Action at
2 256, para. 41. Dr. Koopman's argument that "Catros does not specifically provide motivation to
3 combine differential compression with other elements of a Rozmanith-style system,"
4 2d Koopman Decl. at 194-95, para. 425, appears to be directed to appellant’s disclosure rather
5 than the claimed subject matter.
6 The rejection of claims 94 and 97 for obviousness over Baji in view of Catros is therefore
7 affirmed as to both claims.
8 (3) Claims 94 and 97 – obvious over Baji in view of Sugiyama?
9 We agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to have the compression
10 performed on Baji's motion picture signals by Baji's image encoder 107 take the form of the
11 differential encoding technique disclosed by Sugiyama. 3d Action at 104, para. 44; Final Action
12 at 257, para. 43. Dr. Koopman's testimony regarding this rejection does not address the merits of
13 combining Sugiyama’s differential encoding with Baji, instead arguing that those references fail
14 to satisfy the limitations of parent claim 93. 2d Koopman Decl. at 196, para. 431 (citing id. at
15 194-95, paras. 425-26). As that argument is unconvincing, the rejection of claims 94 and 97 for
16 obviousness over Baji in view of Sugiyama is affirmed as to both claims.
17
18
19 (4) Claim 99 – obvious over Baji in view of McCalley?
53 Dr. Koopman's assertion that claim 97 recites "differentially compressed prior to
receipt of said query" is incorrect. 2d Koopman Decl. at 195, para. 426.
- 86 -
Page: Previous 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007