Appeal No. 95-4414
Application 08/143,007
image having less than a predetermined fraction of the intensity
variation of a corresponding block of the reference image; 4)
there is no generation in Bovik of an impairment level based on
the intensity variation loss information; and 5) the switch in
Bovik does not suggest the operation performed by appellant’s
claimed switch [brief, pages 14-18]. Each of appellant’s
arguments is correct and is sufficient to justify reversal of the
examiner’s rejection.
It is sufficient for this decision to merely consider the
argument referred to as “2" above. All of the means and steps of
the claimed blocking estimation processor are based on a separate
analysis of a signal after it has been processed by compression
and decompression with the same signal without any processing.
In our view, Bovik does not operate on a reference image and a
processed image so that none of the steps or means of the claimed
invention which relate to the processing of two different images
are suggested by Bovik.
The examiner suggests that the image signals coming from
storage device 14 and camera 11 in Bovik represent the two
different signals as claimed. We do not agree. The signals in
storage device 14 are the exact same signals as are generated by
digitizer 12 of Bovik. If the digitizer is the compression
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007