Appeal No. 2004-0042
Application 09/368,380
and 2 of the Answer that the rejection of dependent claims 7 and
17 has been withdrawn, claims 1 through 6, 8, 11 through 16, 18
and 21 through 26 remain for our consideration on appeal. The
examiner has indicated that an objection remains outstanding as
to dependent claims 7, 9, 10, 17, 19 and 20.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for encoding an image sequence, the method
comprising the steps of:
generating an estimate of apparent motion within the image
sequence utilizing a dense motion field of a portion of the image
sequence, wherein the estimate comprises a plurality of motion
vectors each corresponding to an element of the dense motion
field, and is generated at least in part as a constrained
function of a characterization of motion between elements of the
dense motion field and elements of one or more other portions of
the image sequence; and
utilizing the estimate to perform motion compensation on at
least one of the images of the image sequence.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Tekalp et al. (Tekalp) 5,654,771 Aug. 5, 1997
O’Rourke 6,226,410 May 1, 2001
(filed June 30, 1997)
Claims 1 through 3 and 11 through 13 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tekalp. Likewise,
claims 21 through 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007