Appeal No. 2002-0723
Application 08/965,637
V. Whether the Rejection of Claims 29-38 Under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 29-38.
With respect to claim 29, we note that the Examiner has
relied on the Keesman reference solely to teach “applying an
inverse transform and performing motion estimation in only one
layer” [answer, page 6]. The Keesman reference in combination
with the Yamaguchi et al reference fails to cure the deficiencies
of Yamaguchi et al noted above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as set forth above.
Conclusion
In summary, we have not sustained any of the Examiner’s
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007