Ex Parte Lan et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2004-1689                                                        
          Application 09/912,132                                                      

                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               The invention relates to video decoding with reduced                   
          computational complexity as stated in claim 1, reproduced below.            
               1. A method for decoding a video bitstream at a first                  
               resolution, comprising the steps of:                                   
                    producing residual error frames at a second lower                 
               resolution;                                                            
                    producing motion compensated frames at the second lower           
               resolution;                                                            
                    combining the residual error frames with the motion               
               compensated frames to produce video frames; and                        
                    up-scaling the video frames to the first resolution.              

                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
               The examiner relies on the following references:                       
               Choi                          6,442,201    August 27, 2002             
          (filed August 5, 1998)                                                      
               Campisano et al. (Campisano)  6,470,051   October 22, 2002             
          (filed January 25, 1999)                                                    
               Vetro et al. (Vetro)          6,519,288  February 11, 2003             
          (filed March 6, 1998)                                                       

                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               Claims 1-6 and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)           
          as being unpatentable over Choi and Campisano.                              
               Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being            
          unpatentable over Choi and Campisano, further in view of Vetro.             
               We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 9) (pages                   
          referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 14)             
          (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's             
                                        - 2 -                                         





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007