Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
With regard to claim 12, this claim calls for a step of
correlating including “smoothing said combined motion indicator.”
The examiner points to column 30, lines 24-51, of Igarashi for a
teaching of calculating an overall motion by averaging the motion
of all the macro blocks, and contends that such averaging of
motion vectors “is considered smoothing since the vectors are
averaged thus eliminating any anomalous vectors and therefore
smoothing out the overall motion” (answer, paragraph bridging
pages 11-12).
While appellant argues in the principal brief that Igarashi
does not disclose the claimed “smoothing” at column 7, lines 33+,
as well as in Tables 1 and 2, as previously argued by the
examiner, appellant does not argue or dispute the examiner’s
reasoning in the answer, based on column 30, lines 24-51, even
though appellant filed a reply brief and had an opportunity to
respond.
Accordingly, since there is no response from appellant to
the examiner’s rationale for rejecting claim 12, as that
rationale is stated in the answer, we will also sustain the
rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Next, with regard to claim 15, reciting “amounts include a
generally increasing relative amount of field data with
-12-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007