Appeal No. 1997-2398
Application No. 08/354,929
reasons that the truncation amount could be varied to more
accurately reflect the pixel’s original component values.
We find ourselves in general agreement with the appellant
that the skilled artisan, equipped with Gobert's system and
objectives of designing a system including simplified hardware
implementation and reduced prediction error rate (col. 2,
lines 63-68), would not have been motivated to combine the
teachings of Music with the teachings of Gobert. More
specifically, we fail to see why the skilled artisan would
select certain pixel data as taught by Gobert (col. 1, lines
13-15), thereby incorporating a certain error rate into the
motion estimation of a video signal, and, thereafter, further
compound the error rate by truncating the bit data of the
pixel when it is generally understood that such truncation
would further increase the degree of error in the motion
estimation of a video signal. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and
dependent claims 2, 8-12 and 22. Therefore, the decision of
the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 8-12 and 22 is reversed.
DECISION
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007