Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
determining motion, so that this portion of Igarashi teaches that
motion determination is an inter-frame process, especially since
Igarashi teaches that for I-pictures, which are related to intra-
frame coding, “the detector is inoperative” (principal brief,
page 18). Thus, concludes appellant, Igarashi does not teach “an
intra-frame determination indicative of intra-frame motion,” as
required by claim 4.
We will sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 because while appellant argues that Igarashi teaches motion
determination being an “inter-frame process,” column 11, lines
10-11, of Igarashi clearly mentions that “[i]ntra-frame motion
prediction is possible in the encoder of FIG. 4 . . .”
Thus, while the examiner has indicated what, in Igarashi, is
relied on for the teaching of the claim 4 recitation, appellant
has not convincingly pointed out the error in the examiner’s
rationale. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007