Appeal No. 1997-0650
Application 08/171,136
Moreover, assuming for the sake of argument that the
references are properly combined, we find no teaching or
suggestion of the claimed ordering and averaging together
steps of independent claim 1 on appeal to derive the best
match signal and to eventually obtain the instantaneous or IM
signal which is claimed to indicate a scene change only when
the signal meets predetermined decision criteria as set forth
in independent claims 1 and 25 on appeal.
We do not understand Avis as teaching the details of
block matching defined by clause (c) of claim 11 on appeal,
let alone the combined teachings of the references teaching
the calculation of an average value and then normalizing a
minimum value of the first match signal to obtain a normalized
minimum value set forth at the end of claim 11 on appeal.
Finally, as to independent claims 21 and 24 on appeal, we
find no basis in the combined teachings and suggestions of the
references relied upon for comparing the plurality of pairs of
frames set forth in claim 21, for example, in order to
generate an instantaneous match (IM) signal and then
“temporally filtering” this signal to generate the claimed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007