Appeal No. 1999-2012
Application No. 08/801,610
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the Examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
Appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs.
We reverse.
We consider the two grounds of rejections below.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 13 at pages 5 and 6 of
the Examiner’s answer under this ground of rejection. The
Examiner asserts that Gillard anticipates the recited
limitations of this claim, id.
Appellants argue, brief at page 6, that “[t]he reference
[Gillard] clearly does not show or discuss, ‘using ... the
block motion vector for the current block and the block motion
vectors for the three adjacent blocks ... which are nearest to
that portion of pixels of the current block to which the
current pixel belongs, ..’ as claimed ....” We find that
Gillard discloses, column 15, lines 43-50, “[c]onsequently it
is necessary to provide a choice of motion vectors for each
block such that every pixel within that block will have a fair
chance of its motion being accurately estimated. In the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007