Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
While it is true that a macro block is not a pixel, a macro
block is certainly made up of pixels. Thus, it would have been
clear to artisans that as macro blocks get smaller and smaller,
they approach the size of a pixel and, ultimately, a macro block
may comprise a pixel. Thus, the issue here is really what size
macro block we are talking about. Artisans would have understood
that the macro blocks of Igarashi may be as small as one pixel
each, or larger. Accordingly, we find that it would have been
obvious to the artisan that the macro blocks of Igarashi may be
one pixel each in size. Appellant argues that Igarashi operates
on macro blocks, not on pixels, but never explains why the macro
blocks of Igarashi may not be one pixel in size, if desired.
Thus, we will also sustain the rejection of claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claim 4, this claim calls for the determining
step to comprise “forming an intra-frame motion determination
indicating intra-frame motion of said image portion."
The examiner contends that this is taught by Igarashi at
column 15, lines 46-65, where both inter-frame and intra-frame
motion detection are taught.
Appellant’s view is that the cited portion of Igarashi
teaches that previously encoded frames are used as a basis for
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007