Appeal No. 1996-2822
Application 08/153,916
further argues that Kondo, in column 1, lines 18 through 24,
discloses that it is known to accurately detect both vibration
and image movement from an image signal and further knows how
to track a movement of a specific image in a video camera
using this image.
On page 2 of the reply brief, Appellant respectfully
submits that the Examiner has seriously misconstrued Kondo.
Appellant argues that the cited portions of the reference, in
fact, suggest nothing more than the possibility that some
motion vectors obtained from an image may represent the motion
of an object within the image, but they do not suggest that
such vectors can be identified as vectors which represent the
movement of an object within an image. Appellant further
argues on page 4 that Figure 2B only serves as a means of
illustrating how the circuit 16 of Kondo decides which areas
of the image contain movement vectors representing image
vibrations and contain no suggestion of how to detect vectors
representing the movement of an object. Appellant further
argues on pages 5 through 7 of the reply brief that the
Examiner has not provided any evidence that one of ordinary
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007