Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
examiner that this is clearly suggested by Igarashi. This is so
because, while it is true that Igarashi employs either field data
or frame data, but not both, in determining the various macro
blocks comprising a video, it is the combination of the macro
blocks, which also entails a combination of field data and frame
data (because some macro blocks will employ field data while
other macro blocks will employ frame data, depending on which is
more efficient in reducing temporal/spatial redundancy), which
forms the de-interlaced video data, as reasonably explained by
the examiner (answer, pages 10-11).
Thus, it appears that a broad, yet reasonable, reading of
Igarashi does suggest a combination of field data and frame data
in performing down-conversion de-interlacing.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8-
11, 16, 17, 23, 31, 36, 37 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning to claim 2, this claim specifies that the image-
portion “is a pixel.” The examiner points to column 11, lines
22-39, of Igarashi for a teaching that the macro block data is
comprised of pixel data.
Appellant argues that a pixel is not the same as a macro
block and that Igarashi operates on a macro block, and not on an
individual pixel (principal brief, page 14).
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007