Appeal No. 96-0649
Application 08/191,234
known in the art from Gove’s discussion at column 1 and being
based upon a threshold, in Gove alone comports with the notion
of generating an indicator signal when the cumulative signal
arrived at "meets a certain decision criterion or threshold."
The discussion with respect to the decision module 80
beginning at column 6, line 15, indicates that a more complex
system may include a determination whether the camera is not
stationary. In discussing this portion of Gove, appellant
remarks at the bottom of page 5 of the brief that "the ’322
reference recognizes that the presence of camera motion may be
something that effects the determination of a scene change."
We do not regard the teachings so isolated by us in this
decision and all of those recognized by the examiner and noted
in the answer as teaching that a camera motion characteristic
is irrelevant or unimportant or ambiguous. Having said this,
we do not understand appellant’s assertion at the bottom of
page 6 and the top of page 7 of the brief that Gove fails to
show or suggest the use of camera motion as a criterion for
detecting scene changes.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007