Appeal No. 2003-1967
Application No. 08/970,889
277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). With
these principles in mind, we commence review of the pertinent
evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
Claims 1-3, 11 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Adelson in view of Yeo and
Shibata. We note that claims 1 and 21 are independent claims.
Claim 1 is a method for comprehensively representing video
information in a manner facilitating indexing of the video
information and claim 21 is a computer-readable medium having
stored thereon a plurality of instructions, the plurality of
instructions including instructions which, when executed by a
processor, cause the processor to perform substantially the same
steps recited in claim 1.
Appellants argue that Adelson, Yeo and Shibata, either
singly or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the steps
of dividing, using intra-scene motion analysis, at least one of
said plurality of scenes into at least one scene foreground layer
and a scene background layer, representing each scene background
layer as a mosaic, said background layer mosaic defining a key
frame of a respective scene; and representing each of said at
least one video frame forming said scene as a difference between
initial video frame imagery and a respective portion of said key
66
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007