Appeal No. 1999-2817
Application 08/819,587
additional bits and thus no additional bits that must be decoded
according to the recitation in claim 8 on appeal. Like
appellants, we are unaware in Lee of any teaching of any bits
which are not a part of the 16 bit codeword itself. Since
independent claim 20 has corresponding limitations as recited in
independent claim 8, we reverse the rejection of it as well as
dependent claims 12 and 24 depending from them.
In contrast, however, we sustain the rejection of claims
1-3, 6, 13-15 and 18 as being anticipated by Uramoto. As to this
rejection, the examiner’s rather lengthy analysis in the final
rejection is repeated and embellished upon beginning at page 6 of
the answer. We are persuaded by the examiner’s analysis as to
the subject matter of claim 1 on appeal set forth in the answer
between pages 8 and 10 where the examiner explains his view of
fundamental or inherent properties of motion vectors including
two situations where in one case two frames are not exactly the
same and in the other case two frames are exactly the same.
According to the analysis of the examiner, which we find
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007