Appeal No. 2004-0042
Application 09/368,380
feature argued of corresponding method and apparatus independent
claims 1 and 11 on appeal relates to the “wherein” clause of each
claim. The examiner characterizes each of these as comprising
two parts in the arguments presented in the Brief.
As to the features of this portion of the claims, we agree
with the examiner’s reliance upon figures 2 and 2A of Tekalp
along with corresponding column 2, lines 40-50; column 6,
lines 45-65; and column 8, lines 1-17 and 25-47. To this we
would add the initial part of the Abstract, the Summary of
the Invention at column 3, lines 20-60 and the substance of
column 19, lines 1-53. Essentially, corresponding discussions
of figures 1-8 and 13 at columns 5-8 contain significant
teachings apparently unappreciated by appellants.
It appears to us that the substance of appellants’ arguments
in the Brief relative to this rejection is best summarized by a
careful consideration of the examiner’s responsive arguments at
page 8 of the Answer, which we reproduce here:
First the Applicant asserts that Tekalp does not
teach using a constrained function as claimed, see
page 6 with respect to claims 1 and 11. The Examiner
disagrees. A characterization of motion between
elements of the dense motion field and elements of one
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007