Appeal No. 1997-2310
Application No. 08/329,945
such memories. However, as explained above, such reliance on
Knee is misplaced as Knee stores each slice separately.
Accordingly, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness for claims 6, 15, and 23.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 6, 15,
and 23, and their dependents, claims 7, 9 through 14, 16, 17,
19 through 22, 24, 25, and 27 through 31.
With respect to independent claim 32, again the examiner
combines Retter with Knee with no suggestion from the prior
art to do so. Furthermore, the examiner completely fails to
address the method steps of claim 32 in both the Final
Rejection and the Answer, and therefore does not meet his
burden to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. We
find no mention of determining vertical amplitudes of motion
vectors nor basing the amount of memory needed on the maximum
vertical amplitude in either Retter (which is limited to the
processing of still pictures) or Knee. Accordingly, we must
reverse the rejection of claim 32 and its dependents, claims
33 and 34.
CONCLUSION
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007