Appeal No. 2002-1961
Application No. 09/133,430 Page 5
representing the frequency domain. In this type of encoding,
differential data is not generally used, and although intra-frame
encoding uses data from only one frame, this does not suggest
compression coding one field of a frame and then compression
coding the other field of the same frame using differential data
between the one field and the other field, as required by claim
1. In addition, appellants note (brief, pages 8 and 9) that in
Owada, a "picture" can refer to either a frame or a field.
Appellants assert (brief, page 9) that in Owada, if pictures were
represented by fields, a partial area of a field would be encoded
by using only pixels in the present field and motion compensating
operations would be performed in the remaining portion of the
same field, where discrimination circuit 106 would select between
intra-field coding and inter-field coding in local areas of the
remaining portion, i.e., the refresh area of each field would be
intra-field encoded and local areas of the other part of the
field would be either intra-field encoded or inter-field encoded
based upon decisions of the discriminating circuit 106.
We note at the outset that the examiner bears the initial
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness in a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In reaching our decision in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007