Appeal No. 2004-0252
Application No. 09/439,920
increasing motion,” the examiner points to column 7, lines 44-49,
of Igarashi for a teaching of field-based transformations being
best for an area of a picture as a function of the amount of
motion in the area. Therefore, concludes the examiner, “the more
motion present the more data required to encode the picture”
(answer, page 5).
Appellant argues that Igarashi merely uses an amount of
motion “as a selection criteria for deciding whether to select
field-based transformation or whether to select frame-based
transformation” (principal brief, page 22).
We agree with the examiner that the artisan would have been
well aware that the amount of field data required to represent
motion is directly proportional to the amount of motion present,
so that as the amount of motion increases, the amount of field
data necessary will also increase.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 26 requires processing a frame of video data such that
vertical detail that might exist within an overlapping region of
two fields of said frame, if present, is removed.
The examiner cites column 7, lines 33-45, of Igarashi and
finds that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
-13-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007