Appeal No. 2006-2658
Application No. 09/790,334
Therefore, the examiner contends that by appellants’ own
definitions, since Sato discloses MPEG and H.261 processes (see
the abstract, for example), it discloses “semantic compression
processes,” as claimed. Further, the examiner contends, this
semantic compression process is selected based on a “task,”
because it is selected based on “control commands” and “control”
is one type of “task” as defined by appellants.
While appellants do not argue the examiner’s response re the
definition of a “task” including the control commands of Sato,
appellants do argue that claim 4 does not define a “semantic
compression process” as M-JPEG, M-JBIG, or H.261. Rather,
according to appellants, that claim merely recites these
standards as “compression processes” which may be included in
“semantic compression processes.”
Since the examiner’s rationale regarding the control
commands of Sato as constituting the claimed “task,” within the
definition established by appellants’ own claim 2, and this point
is not further addressed by appellants in their reply brief, we
find for the examiner on this point.
While appellants may be correct in their assertion that
claim 4 only defines the M-JPEG, M-JBIG, and H.261 standards as
“compression processes” which may be included within “semantic
compression processes,” it appears to us that the real issue here
is what is the definition of “semantic compression processes.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007