Appeal No. 2004-0042
Application 09/368,380
noted figures in O’Rourke. There does appear to be teachings
within the encoding operation that relate to decoding functions,
but they only desire to decode a portion of the encoded sequence
of images to derive a sequence of step sizes. The reader would
not be deceived by this process because it still provides an
output of the image encoder 200 and encoded image. Separate
video decoding structures and functions are set forth elsewhere
in O’Rourke.
The examiner correctly relies upon the a posteriori (MAP)
functions at the bottom of column 4 and its corresponding Huber
Markov Random Field (HMRF) as a basis to reject corresponding
method independent claim 21 and its apparatus version in
claim 24.
Most pertinent to the present claims and disclosed invention
is the motion video representation in Figure 7, the discussion of
which begins at topic 2 at the bottom of column 9 of O’Rourke
through column 11, line 31. The specific discussion herein
relies upon the corresponding teachings of Figures 2A, 2B, 3A and
3B. The examiner correctly relies upon the motion estimator 755
in Figure 7 along with its corresponding motion compensator 760
as a part of the video encoder 700 shown in this figure.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007