Appeal No. 2003-1692
Application No. 09/835,347
opinion, Yamaguchi does not teach that a relative position of an
edge of an object picture block with respect to the whole picture
corresponds to a relative position of an edge of an object
picture block with respect to a chronologically preceding
picture. In particular, appellant urges that Yamaguchi does not
disclose the way in which the image signal is divided into
blocks.
We agree with appellant. Although an image signal is
clearly broken up into blocks in Yamaguchi (see column 21, lines
22-24), it is not clear, from Yamaguchi’s disclosure, exactly how
these blocks are positioned with respect to the whole picture.
As postured by appellant, since the image in Yamaguchi moves, the
position of the image in the whole picture also moves, ever
changing. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that the
relative positions of the blocks of the image signal within the
picture will change. Therefore, it does not appear that the
relative positions of the blocks previously stored in Yamaguchi’s
motion-compensation circuit with respect to the whole picture
correspond to the relative positions of the blocks of a current
image with respect to the whole picture.
As stated by appellant, at pages 19-20 of the principal
brief,
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007