Appeal No. 2006-1695
Application No. 10/649,277
According to appellants, Kuchta teaches away from the claimed
system which processes the images' original content before
compression, selection, and storage to increase the number of
images capable of being stored in a memory device [brief, page
10]. As a result, appellants conclude that the cited prior art
does not teach nor suggest (1) selecting one compressed resultant
image from a plurality of compressed resultant images, and then
(2) placing each of the selected ones of the plurality of
compressed, resultant images into memory as claimed [reply brief,
page 5].
The examiner argues that by storing Takagi's compressed
resultant images in accordance with Kuchta's method, reduced-size
preview images can be quickly displayed since it is unnecessary
to decompress the full-resolution version of the image [answer,
pages 17, 20, and 21]. The examiner further notes that because
Takagi's compressed resultant images that are displayed as a
group are already stored in memory prior to display, the combined
teachings of the cited prior art teaches that all of the selected
images have already been placed into a concatenation file (i.e.,
stored) when they are selected [answer, page 18].
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007