Appeal No. 2002-1231
Application No. 09/328,693
representative vector for the macroblock, we do not find that Fujinami or the
combination teaches or fairly suggests “means for forming a reference vector and a
plurality of difference vectors from the motion vectors of a plurality of contiguous blocks
which form a sub-picture, the reference vector being the motion vector of any selected
one of said blocks, and each difference vector being the difference between the motion
vector of a block and the motion vector an immediately adjacent block.” We disagree
with the examiner’s correlation of the teachings of Fujinami to the claim limitations.
Fujinami discloses at columns 6-8 that the subblocks are used in the processing and
determination of the representative values, but that the macroblock is the block which
corresponds to the encoded data by the variable length coder. Therefore, the “blocks”
as recited throughout the claim would have to correspond to the macroblock and not
the subblock as correlated by the examiner. Therefore, the representative vector
between must be selected from the motion vectors of the other macroblocks to teach or
suggest the limitation as claimed. We agree with appellants that Fujinami does not
teach or suggest the above limitation. Appellants argue that Yagasaki does not teach
or suggest the above limitation at page 5 of the brief and the examiner does not
respond more than repeating the prior citation to column 18 of Yagasaki regarding a
strong spatial correlation. (See answer at page 7.) While we agree that Yagasaki
teaches the strong spatial correlation, we do not find that Yagasaki teaches or fairly
suggests “the reference vector being the motion vector of any selected one of said
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007