Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
The output of Figure 3 is said to be “progressive video,”
which the examiner alleges meets the claim language, “forming de-
interlaced video data corresponding with said interlaced video
data in accordance with said determined motion.”
The examiner explains that the forming of de-interlaced
video is accomplished by combining frame data and field data of
the interlaced video data (pointing to Igarashi, Figure 3 and
column 16, lines 14-57). The examiner further explains that
after selecting the most efficient means, i.e., frame or field
motion detection, for processing the macro block, the macro block
is processed and combined with previously encoded macro blocks to
form the picture frame which is by definition de-interlaced video
(pointing to Figure 10 of Igarashi, as well as column 10, lines
32-39).
The examiner appears to recognize that Igarashi does not
teach the use of frame and field data together because the
examiner states that:
While Igarashi is clearly concerned with selecting
which is the most efficient means, the motivation to
combine the data is clearly taught. . . . it was well
known that digital pictures were . . . made up of macro
blocks [sic], Igarashi teaches that by processing each
individual macro block in the most efficient manner,
the picture that these macro blocks make up when
combined, will be efficiently coded. Therefore[,] it
would have been obvious . . . to modify the encoder as
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007