Appeal No. 1999-2449
Application No. 08/745,584 Page 9
rejection of independent claims 1, 5, and 15, as well as claims
2, 6-9, and 16, dependent therefrom, is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Gonzales in view of Kopet.
The examiner relies upon Kopet (answer, pages 5 and 6) for a
teaching of passing best match macroblock difference and offsets
in daisy chain fashion. Appellants (brief, page 11) do not
dispute the examiner's findings with respect of Kopet. However,
we reverse the rejection of dependent claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) because: (a)the examiner has not shown that it would
have been obvious to have carried out the "additional
corrections" of Gonzales using the motion estimation unit of
figure 12b; and (b)the examiner has not pointed out how Kopet
makes up for the basic deficiencies of Gonzales.
We consider next the rejection of claims 11, 12, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gonzales in view of
Greenfield. The examiner (answer, pages 6 and 7) relies upon
Greenfield for a teaching of half pixel and dual prime search
means. Appellants (brief, page 11) do not dispute the examiner's
findings with respect to Greenfield. However, we reverse the
rejection of dependent claims 11, 12, and 17 because 103(a)
because: (a)the examiner has not shown that it would have been
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007