Appeal No. 2004-1689
Application 09/912,132
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to add (not
substitute as argued by the appellant in a previous action) an
upscaling capability in order to assure that the decoder is
universal to all monitors" (EA5-6).
We find that the applied prior art does not provide the
necessary motivation for the proposed combination. The invention
is performing motion compensation of residual error (B and P)
frames at a lower resolution and then up-scaling the video frames
to the original resolution, which reduces the overall
computational complexity of the decoding. We agree with the
examiner that Choi expressly teaches performing motion
compensation on residual error frames of reduced resolution to
reduce computational and hardware complexity at column 3,
lines 18-67. However, we agree with appellant that there is no
motivation in Choi to up-scale the video frames to their original
resolution because the whole purpose of Choi is to reduce HD
signals to SD signals. Thus, we look to see whether Campisano
provides the necessary motivation.
The examiner relies on the up-sampling unit 92 in Fig. 5.
However, we must look at the whole of Campisano. Campisano
discloses decode systems "which allow selective scaling of video
presentation by a predetermined reduction factor, while at the
same time allowing for reduced external memory requirements for
frame buffer storage" (col. 1, lines 39-43). Campisano has a
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007