Appeal No. 2004-0907
Application No. 09/192,674
we will consider claim 9 first, and separately, because the claim contains only one of the
features relied upon by appellants.
Claim 9 recites estimating motion vectors relating to first objects, and generating
prediction errors relating to every occurrence of (smaller) second objects, wherein the
prediction errors depend on motion vectors for the second objects only. Appellants
argue that, based on the disclosure at column 5, lines 39 through 64 of Ng, the
reference neither teaches nor suggests the recited “generating prediction errors in
dependence on said second motion vectors only.”
However, the arguments are not responsive to the rejection that has been
applied. Appellants are, instead, arguing an issue that is not in controversy. The
examiner does not find that Ng teaches or suggests the claimed feature. The rejection
relies on the noted section of Ng for a teaching of generating prediction errors
dependent on motion vectors associated with the second (smaller) objects. The
rejection relies on that teaching combined with de Haan, however, for suggestion of
generating prediction errors in dependence on the second motion vectors “only.”
(Answer at 3-5 and 10-11.)
The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability. If that burden is met, the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shifts to the applicant. After evidence or argument is submitted by the
applicant in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the record, by a
preponderance of evidence with due consideration to persuasiveness of argument. In
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007