Appeal No. 2004-1689
Application 09/912,132
rejection, and to the brief (Paper No. 13) (pages referred to as
"Br__") for a statement of appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Choi discloses the subject matter of
claim 1 except for the limitation of "up-scaling the video frames
to the first resolution" (FR3). The examiner states (FR3):
"Campisano teaches that once the decoding is done, the output to
the display, shown in figure 5 item 92, can be up-sampled.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art, to up-scale to the higher resolution after decoding is
done in order to get the desired picture quality."
Appellants argue that the combination of Choi and Campisano
neither teaches nor suggests all of the claim limitations, in
particular, "producing residual error frames at a second lower
resolution" (Br5). It is argued that the examiner relies on the
4x8 IDCT unit in Fig. 5 of Choi, but that it is nowhere disclosed
that the 4x8 IDCT unit produces residual error frames at a second
lower resolution (Br5). It is argued that the decimation unit is
placed after the adder 59 in Choi, and since the adder combines
the outputs of the 4x8 IDCT unit 54 and the motion compensation
unit 58, this implies that only the output frames of Choi are
produced at a lower resolution and Choi cannot be reasonably
interpreted as disclosing "producing residual error frames at a
second lower resolution" (Br5).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007