Appeal No. 1999-2012
Application No. 08/801,610
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or
evidence. Obviousness, is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The Examiner uses Keating for motion compensated
interpolations (answer at page 7), and Takahashi for motion
vector selections in the subblock level (id. at 8). However,
for the rationale above, we agree with the Appellants’
position, brief at page 10, that, with respect to independent
claim 9, the suggested combination of Gillard, Takahaski, and
Keating does
not show the claimed limitation of “error estimation means, in
particular linear error interpolation means, ... which comprise
the motion vector of a current block and the motion vectors of
three blocks adjacent to said current block and which calculate
for each pixel in said current block estimated errors, ....”
With respect to the other independent claim, claim 11
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007