Appeal No. 1999-2449
Application No. 08/745,584 Page 8
macroblock. In response to appellants' arguments, the examiner
does not point to any specific showing in Gonzales of how the
additional correction is performed. From our review of
Gonzales, we agree with appellants (brief, page 8) that:
Gonzales shows a single Motion Estimation Unit
(bottom of his Fig. 12b) and states (col. 14, lines
3-6) that the results, i.e. the motion vector of this
single Motion Estimation, can be shared since in his
invention motion vectors are one of the attributes
shared by macroblocks at all scales. Note that
searching for a motion vector is done in a Motion
Estimation unit, whereas motion compensation coding
is performed in the remaining blocks of Gonzales'
Fig. 12b (at three different scales), using the results
i.e. motion vector of a single search.
Because we find no clear teaching in Gonzales that the
additional correction is carried out by conducting a second or
refinement search around the offset of the best match
macroblock (claims 1 and 5) or best match diff/offset bus
(claim 15), and the examiner has failed to point to any
teaching or suggestion of how the additional correction is
carried out in Gonzales, we find that the examiner is
resorting to speculation in order to conclude that the
additional correction referred to in Gonzales is carried out in
the manner set forth in independent claims 1, 5, and 15.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of independent
claims 1, 5, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007