Appeal No. 1998-1334
Application No. 08/350,141
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Iu.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and answer for the 1
respective details thereof.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
On pages 5 through 11 of the brief, Appellants argue that
Iu fails to teach a motion estimating method that comprises
producing a first mean value of a luminance signal of a
current block, producing a second mean value of a luminance
signal of a block in a previous frame, compensating the block
of the previous frame so that the luminance signal of that
1Appellants filed an appeal brief on May 2, 1997.
Appellants filed a reply brief on September 8, 1997. Examiner
mailed a communication on September 30, 1997 stating that the
reply brief has been entered and considered but no further
response by the Examiner had been deemed necessary.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007