Appeal No. 1999-2012
Application No. 08/801,610
we again are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the
combination of Gillard, Takahashi, and Keating does not show
the claimed limitation of “subblock matching means for
comparing sets of four of the stored block motion vectors, that
is the motion vector of the current block and the motion
vectors of the three adjacent blocks, to select vectors having
a minimum sub block error,” see brief at pages 9 and 10.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 9 and 11, and dependent claims 5 and 6, over
Gillard, Keating and Takahashi.
In summary, we have not sustained the anticipation
rejection of claims 2 and 13 by Gillard, and the obviousness
rejection of claims 5, 6, 9 and 11 over Gillard, Keating and
Takahashi.
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 2, 5, 6, 9,
11, and 13 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007