Ex parte IWATA - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1997-0201                                                         
          Application No. 08/140,318                                                   


               The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                         
          Komarek et al. (Komarek), “Array Architectures for Block                     
          Matching Algorithms,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and                      
          Systems, vol. 36, no. 10 (October 1989).                                     
          De Vos et al. (De Vos), “Parameterizable VLSI Architectures                  
          for the Full-Search Block-Matching Algorithm,” IEEE                          
          Transactions on Circuits and Systems, vol. 36, no. 10 (October               
          1989).                                                                       
               Claims 4-14 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103                
          as being unpatentable over Komarek in view of De Vos.                        
               Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the                                                                      
          Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the                  
          respective details thereof.                                                  
                                       OPINION                                         
              We have carefully considered the subject matter on                      
          appeal, the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the                       
          evidence of obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support               
          for the rejection.  We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into               
          consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments               
          set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in                
          support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth                 
          in the Examiner’s Answer.                                                    



                                          4                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007