Appeal No. 2003-1085
Application No. 09/190,670
to which each rejection applies, i.e., claims 1 and 4. See In re
Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed.
Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Claim 1
The appellants’ claim 1 claims a method comprising supplying
every third frame without motion vectors or motion parameters,
and motion-compensated predictively encoding that every third
frame using motion vectors between a preceding pair of frames.
The transition term “comprising” opens the claim to steps other
than those recited. See In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210
USPQ 795, 802 (CCPA 1981). Such steps include motion-compensated
predictively encoding frames other than every third frame using
motion vectors between a preceding pair of frames. This claim
interpretation is consistent with the appellants’ specification.
The specification discloses motion-compensated predictively
encoding picture P3 using motion vectors between a preceding pair
of frames (MVP1-P2) and then motion-compensated predictively
encoding picture P4 using motion vectors between a preceding pair
of frames (MVP2-P3), and discloses that this process can go on
indefinitely (page 10, lines 18-33).
Suzuki discloses a method of motion-compensated predictively
encoding image signals wherein “the direct mode may predictively
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007