Appeal No. 2003-1085
Application No. 09/190,670
requirement to one of ordinary skill in the art.
We therefore conclude that the method claimed in the
appellants’ claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of that claim and claim 3
that stands or falls therewith.1
Claim 4
In the direct mode, Suzuki can receive always at least one
motion-compensated predictively encoded B-picture from a
transmission or recording medium without receiving motion vectors
or motion parameters corresponding to the frame, and motion-
compensated predictively encode (and, necessarily, decode) that
frame using motion vectors between a preceding pair of frames
(col. 1, lines 9-21; col. 38, lines 9-12).
The appellants argue that “the direct mode of Suzuki et al.
is not always applied. Thus, it is evident that Suzuki et al.
also does not meet the feature of either ‘decoding or receiving
always at least one motion-compensated predictively encoded frame
without receiving motion vectors or motion parameters
corresponding to the frame’, as required by claims 4 and 7-8"
(brief, page 5).
1 We need not address Yamashita because it is merely
cumulative.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007