Appeal No. 1997-3844
Application No. 08/456,963
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the Examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
With respect to independent claim 8, appellant argues at page 8 of the brief that the
prior art to Nagata and Kondo do not teach the claim limitation pertaining to the
“motion vector encoding means, operating when respective differences
between the motion vector for the target block and each motion vector for the
comparison blocks is outside an allowable range, for generating an
encoding of the motion vector for the target block which represents the
motion vector for the target block as a difference between the motion vector
for the target block and the motion vector for a selected one of the
comparison blocks.”
We agree with appellant. The Examiner states that it is the “Examiner’s opinion that
Kondo . . . meets the claimed limitation of representing the motion vector for the target
block . . . and the motion vector for a comparison block of the picture (see column 5, line
62 to column 6, line 21 of Kondo).” (Examiner's answer, pg. 10). We have reviewed the
cited portion of Kondo and disagree with the Examiner's conclusion that Kondo teaches
“encoding of the motion vector for the target block which represents the motion vector for
the target block as a difference between the motion vector for the target block and the
motion vector for a selected one of the comparison blocks” as set
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007