Appeal No. 2003-1692
Application No. 09/835,347
or images, and it is true that there is an overlap with regard to
some of the processing in both Yamaguchi and the instant
invention, we simply do not find disclosed in Yamaguchi the
claimed feature of a relative position of an edge of an object
picture block with respect to the whole picture corresponding to
a relative position of an edge of an object picture block with
respect to a chronologically preceding picture.
The examiner’s reliance on Yamaguchi’s teaching, at column
21, lines 59, through column 22, line 18, of a switch circuit 210
which determines as to whether the block of the input predicted
error signal 30 is an internal block, an external block or an
edge block, is misplaced. This recited determination as to which
category a picture block of the image belongs is not a disclosure
or suggestion of determining the position of the object picture
block. We agree with appellant’s position, at page 2 of the
reply brief, that the switch circuit 210 in Yamaguchi processes
an image already processed by motion compensation, i.e., “an
image in which the positions of the picture blocks have already
been determined.” The operation of switch circuit 210 is
directed to the coding of the digitized image, not to determining
position of picture blocks. Rather, the determination of picture
block locations in Yamaguchi is performed during the motion
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007