Appeal No. 1997-3844
Application No. 08/456,963
forth in the language of claim 8. Appellant argues that the prior art does not encode the
motion vector for the target as a difference. Appellant further argues that “if Kondo can be
said to be encoding a motion vector at all, it is merely encoding the motion vector as
another motion vector. There is nothing in Kondo that discloses or suggests encoding a
motion vector as a difference between motion vectors.” (See brief at page 8.) We agree
with appellant.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47
USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We find that the Examiner has not provided a
teaching or convincing line of reasoning why one skilled in the art would have desired to
encode using the difference in the motion vectors. Therefore, the Examiner has not
provided a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 8 and its dependent
claims. As such, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 8 nor its dependent claims 9-11
and 25-31.
With respect to claim 12, appellant relies upon the same argument as with claim 8
regarding “the compressed picture block including coded transform coefficients and a
motion vector encoding which represents a motion vector for the target block as a
difference between the motion vector for the target block and a motion vector for a
selected one of comparison blocks, the comparison block including blocks of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007