Appeal No. 2003-1550
Application No. 09/365,209
frame-sequential system, i.e., a full color display represented
by the sequential display of color component sub-fields.
Moreover, appellants argue, the instant claimed invention
applies motion compensation to the component color subframes, not
to conventional video frames containing all luminance and
chrominance information for a color image frame. Gillard, allege
appellants, does not teach or suggest motion compensation based
on component subframes.
With regard to appellants’ first arguments relative to
“color artifacts,” the examiner has indicated, appellants have
admitted, and we agree, that instant claim 1 is not limited to
different color subframes exhibited in a color-sequential manner
(though other claims, e.g., claim 2, appear to be so limited).
However, we do agree with appellants that claim 1 is limited
to the application of motion compensation to subframes
representing different components of an image frame for display
at different respective times within a frame period. Gillard
does not appear to teach such a limitation.
The examiner’s response is that appellants already admit “on
page 8 of the Brief that Gillard . . . teaches motion
compensation” (answer, page 3). In addressing the “components
subframes”(as argued by appellants at page 9 of the principal
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007