Appeal No. 2002-1231
Application No. 09/328,693
Claims 1, 4-9, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Fujinami in view of Vogel in view of Yagasaki.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 37, mailed Oct. 23, 2001) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 36, filed Aug. 15, 2001) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that the combination of references must teach all of the claim
limitations and that the combination of Fujinami, Vogel and Yagasaki do not teach or
fairly suggest “the reference vector being the motion vector of any selected one of said
blocks” as recited in independent claim 1. (See brief at pages 4-5.) The examiner
maintains that Fujinami teaches the vector VN being the representative vector of Va,
Vb, and Vc and the difference between the individual vectors as shown in Fig. 3 is
considered to be zero and relies upon the teachings of columns 7-8. (See answer at
page 6.) While we agree with the examiner that Fujinami teaches that VN is a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007