Appeal No. 2006-2658
Application No. 09/790,334
devices (in Figure 1) creating one or more video image streams
(Figure 1, item 16). The examiner also asserts that the claimed
“selector process” is met by Sato by the selector 20 of Figure 1
selecting a semantic compression process out of a set of
compression processes (referring to 18 of Figure 1, e.g., a set
of compression processes is a set of video compression processes
that comprises M-JPEG, MPEG, and H.261), wherein the selected
semantic compression process compresses one or more of the video
streams based on a task that required the compression of the one
or more video streams and that utilizes content of the one or
more video streams (The examiner refers to the “task” being a
control 26 of Figure 1, item 20 of Figure 1 being the selector
selecting one of the compression processes based on the
controller 26).
Appellants argue that a “semantic compression process” is a
compression process that compresses based on the semantics of the
content, and they note, at page 4 of the supplemental brief, that
at the time of the instant invention (December 30, 1996), none of
the compression processes disclosed or suggested by Sato were
semantic compression processes, “as would be apparent to a person
of ordinary skill in the art.”
Moreover, note appellants, Sato teaches that the selector
selects a compression process “according to control commands
received through the network” (column 3, lines 62-63), while
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007