Appeal No. 1999-2825
Application 08/967,251
The examiner’s rejection is set forth in the final
rejection [Paper No. 13] and in the previous Office action [Paper
No. 10]. With respect to all the claims on appeal, appellant
argues that Kondo does not disclose or suggest the simplified
signature block being based on a row and column sum of pixels
only within the target block as claimed. Appellant argues that
Kondo discloses a subtractor for forming differences and not an
adder for forming sums [brief, pages 6-7].
The examiner responds that the generation of a spatial
average value of motion for correction in Kondo anticipates using
a row and column sum as claimed. The examiner also finds that
the use of an integrating function in Kondo anticipates row and
column sum manipulation, and for the case of the frequency
distribution table formation, sum of difference output
integration along both rows and columns before the averaging step
[answer, pages 4-6].
We will not sustain this rejection of claims 1-9.
Although we agree with the examiner that Kondo performs a sum of
differences calculation along rows and columns of a data block,
Kondo does not disclose the step of defining a simplified
signature block from said target block, said simplified signature
block being based on a row and column sum of pixels only within
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007