Ex parte OTA et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1998-1325                                                        
          Application No. 08/027,783                                                  


               Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it               
          reads as follows:                                                           
               1.  Apparatus for use in a video compression system                    
               having a motion vector generator for detecting linear                  
               motion of video information from one video frame to                    
               another and for generating motion vector data                          
               representative thereof, and an intraframe spatial                      
               redundancy processor for reducing video data                           
               representing the video information within a video                      
               frame, said apparatus comprising: rotation sensing                     
               means for sensing rotation of video information from                   
               a previous frame to a present frame; rotation vector                   
                    generating means for generating rotation vector data              
                    representing a magnitude of the rotation sensed by                
               said rotation sensing means; and means for combining                   
               said rotation vector data with said motion vector                      
               data.                                                                  
               The reference relied on by the examiner is:                            
          Kummerfeldt et al. (Kummerfeldt)   4,816,906           Mar. 28,             
          1989                                                                        
               Claims 1 through 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103               
          as being unpatentable over Kummerfeldt.                                     
               Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the                 
          respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.                    
                                       OPINION                                        
               The obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 58 is                    
          reversed.                                                                   
               Although Kummerfeldt discloses “translation (linear),                  
                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007