Appeal No. 2004-0907
Application No. 09/192,674
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Since
appellants’ arguments do not show error in the examiner’s findings in support of the
rejection, we sustain the rejection of claim 9.
The remainder of the claims (e.g., representative claim 1) recite the additional
feature of filtering every occurrence of the first motion vectors to obtain second motion
vectors for second objects. Appellants quote the right column of de Haan at page 373,
lines 2 through 9, and submit that, based on that disclosure, it was evident that the
reference neither teaches nor suggests the relied-upon feature.
Rather than repeating the examiner’s reasonable and extensive findings herein,
we refer to the examiner’s position set out in the Answer. The de Haan reference, at
pages 373 and 374, describes a block erosion process that the examiner relates to the
operations described in the instant specification. Contrary to appellants’ implication in
the Brief, we do not find any statement in de Haan that the operation referenced in the
relevant section “only” eliminates block boundaries from the vector field without blurring
contours.
The reference section appears not to contain the term “MVPF” (i.e., motion
vector post-filtering). However, we read the “MVPF” parenthetical in claim 1 as merely
a reference to the instant disclosure, and not a limitation from the specification that is to
be read into the claim. Moreover, particularly in light of the examiner’s analysis, it is not
seen how the verbal description of the MVPF “filtering” in the specification (at the lower
portion of page 4) differs from the operation in the reference applied.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007