Appeal No. 2003-1085
Application No. 09/190,670
encode a B-picture between two I- or P-pictures at different time
points using a motion vector of a directly previously decoded
P-picture” (col. 38, lines 9-12). Thus, Suzuki would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, encoding
B-pictures between two I- or P-pictures in any position,
including the third frame, using motion vectors between a
preceding pair of frames.
The appellants argue that if Suzuki’s direct mode is not
used, none of the pictures will be predictively encoded using a
motion vector of a directly previously decoded P-picture (brief,
page 4). Thus, the appellants argue, if Suzuki’s disclosure is
followed, not every third frame is predictively encoded using
motion vectors between a preceding pair of frames as required by
the appellants’ claim 1. See id.
For a prima facie case of obviousness of the appellants’
claimed method to be established, it is not necessary that the
disclosures of all of Suzuki’s modes would have fairly suggested,
to one of ordinary skill in the art, predictively encoding every
third frame using motion vectors between a preceding pair of
frames. Instead, all that is needed is for the disclosure of any
one mode to have done so. As discussed above, Suzuki’s direct
mode disclosure would have fairly suggested that claim
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007