Ex Parte BAGNI et al - Page 2




             Appeal No. 2004-0907                                                                              
             Application No. 09/192,674                                                                        

                                               BACKGROUND                                                      
                   The invention relates to a method of motion-compensated predictive image                    
             encoding.  Claim 9 is reproduced below.                                                           
                   9.     A method for generating a motion-compensated predictively encoded                    
                   image signal, comprising:                                                                   
                          estimating motion vectors (MVc, MVl, MVr, MVa, MVb) relating to first                
                   objects (16*16); and generating prediction errors relating to every occurrence of           
                   second objects (8* 8), said second objects (8*8) being smaller than said first              
                   objects (16*16), wherein said prediction errors depend on motion vectors for said           
                   second objects (8*8) only.                                                                  
                   The examiner relies on the following references:                                            
             Ng                              5,146,325                        Sep.  8, 1992                    
             Gerard de Haan et al. (de Haan), “True-Motion Estimation with 3-D Recursive Search                
             Block Matching,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology,                  
             Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 368-79, Oct. 1993.                                                             
                   Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ng               
             and de Haan.                                                                                      
                   We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 21) and the Examiner’s Answer                    
             (Paper No. 24) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No.             
             23) for appellants’ position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.                     


                                                  OPINION                                                      
                   Appellants submit that the claims stand or fall together, and argue that two                
             features of instant claim 1 are not disclosed or suggested by the references.  However,           

                                                      -2-                                                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007