Appeal No. 1999-2012
Application No. 08/801,610
for that particular block and the six for the six nearest
blocks respectively.” The Examiner relies on this statement of
Gillard and contends that “defining four motion block vectors
as claimed are included in the seven motion vectors of
Gillard.” Examiner’s Answer at page 10. We are not persuaded
by the Examiner’s reasoning. Gillard in columns 15 and 16
shows one way of selecting the four motion vectors. Gillard
does not explain how the four motion vectors can be related to
the individual pixel vectors, and neither does the Examiner.
Therefore, the Examiner has not carried his burden of putting
forth a prima facie case of meeting the recited limitation.
Consequently, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
claims 13 and 2 by Gillard.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 9 and 11 under this
ground of rejection over Gillard in view of Keating and
Takahashi at pages 6-9 of the Examiner’s Answer.
As a general proposition, in an appeal involving a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an Examiner is under a burden
to make out a prima facie case of obviousness. If that burden
is met, the burden of going forward then shifts to the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007