Appeal No. 1999-1520
Application No. 08/634,203
means. Neither decimation information setting unit 4 nor reference position setter 9,
working alone or in combination, performs the functions recited in instant claim 1.
We also note that on page 5 of the Answer, the disclosure of Kondo is added in the
section 103 rejection to show, inter alia, obviousness of particular “variable features”
specific to dependent claims. However, there is no associated discussion of where the
more general (claim 1) “variable feature” teaching may be found in Yamada.
We consider instant claim 1 to set forth at least one feature that is missing from
Yamada; the reference thus cannot support a finding of anticipation. As shown in
appellant’s Figure 1, and principally described at pages 8 and 9 of the specification,
reference block analyzing circuit 3 determines which pixels are to be selected from the
reference block (register 4) and the check block (register 5). The selection is based on a
“particular feature” of the reference block data. Two examples of “particular features” are
maximum and minimum values of the pixels, and maximum and minimum deviations from
the mean value in the reference block.
Consistent with this disclosure, instant claim 1 calls for adaptive determination of
pixels in the reference block based on a variable feature of the reference block. The
requirement is different from the disclosure of Yamada, whereby the pixels to be sampled
are set in advance of processing, rather than adaptively determined. Column 5, lines 20-
21, upon which the rejection relies, refers to the embodiment of Figure 5(a). As clearly
shown in the figure, decimation information setting unit 4 receives no data from the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007