Appeal No. 2004-0042
Application 09/368,380
portions that the examiner and we have identified relate fairly
to a characterization of a relationship of motion between
elements or pixels and elements in surrounding or other portions
of a given image of a sequence of images.
Page 2 of the Reply Brief presents us with an incomplete
recitation of what the examiner has recited at page 8 of the
responsive arguments portion of the Answer that we reproduced
in full earlier. Moreover, appellants correctly quote the
examiner’s observation at page 2 of the Reply Brief that Tekalp
constrains the areas containing certain vectors by grouping them
together into separate sections such that each section or element
of the dense motion field is characterized by motion vectors
constrained to that particular area, Answer page 8, but does not
challenge the actual assertions made by the examiner. Rather,
appellants go on to even presume for purposes of argument that
if the proffered characterization of Tekalp is correct, the
characterization clause of independent claims 1 and 11 on appeal
is distinguished over the positions argued by the examiner. To
further argue that the constrained function is not synonymous
with a defined area of an image or is simply a function of
the corresponding defined image area at the middle of page 2
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007