Appeal No. 2004-2297 Page 6
Application No. 10/196,817
analyzes pixel values that are on an edge in one field, with
pixel values that are at the same spatial locations in preceding
fields. Appellants add (brief, page 5) that as a result,
Rosenberg's analysis is confined to the location that happens to
be on an edge in the current field, and that in the preceding
fields, the edge may be at a completely different location.
It is further argued (id.) that an artisan would not combine
the teachings of Rosenberg with Brailean because Brailean
deals with edges in the motion vector field whereas Rosenberg
deals with edges in video data. Appellants argue (id.) that even
if the two references were combined, the resulting combination
would compare video data in an edge location in the current field
with video data at the same location in a preceding field.
Appellants additionally argue that the examiner is taking
various terms of Rosenberg out of context in an attempt to show
the subject invention. Appellants argue that although Rosenberg
refers to GME, there is no disclosure that the GME discloses a
motion vector field, detecting edges in the motion vector field,
and that detected edge locations in successive field locations
should be compared to identify both foreground and background.
The examiner responds (answer, page 6) that limitations
disclosed by the primary reference need not be disclosed by the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007