Appeal No. 2006-2658
Application No. 09/790,334
In view of these observations in the instant specification,
we agree with appellants that the Motion Picture Experts Group
compression standards recited in claim 4 are not recited as
examples of the claimed “semantic compression processes” but,
rather are merely prior art compression processes which are
included in the claimed “semantic compression processes,” and
that a semantic compression process must be a process capable of
compression of information based on the content of that
information. The examiner has not shown that any of these prior
art MPEG compression standards disclosed by Sato are capable of
compressing information therein based on content.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1,
2, 4, and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Since none of the other applied references provide for the
deficiency of Sato in teaching a “semantic compression process,”
as claimed, and we agree with appellants that not one of these
additional references addresses the issue of selecting a semantic
compression process out of a set of semantic compression
processes based on a task, we also will not sustain the rejection
of claims 3 and 5-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007