Appeal No. 2004-2297 Page 9
Application No. 10/196,817
From the disclosure of Brailean, we find no teaching of comparing
edge locations in successive fields to identify both foreground
and background.
Turning to Rosenberg, we find that the reference is directed
to detecting objects in an image, and in particular to real-time
object tracking. The invention provides improved image
compression control that is well suited for video phone systems
and video-conferencing equipment using PSTN channels and other
low bit-rate channels requiring high levels of video compression
(col. 1, lines 8-10 and col. 7, lines 3-7). Because Rosenberg is
directed to video compression for video-conferencing over PSTN
lines that are of low bandwidth, and is not directed to
correcting problem areas in an image signal, we find no reason
that would have taught or suggested an artisan to combine the
teachings of Brailean and Rosenberg. The motivation provided by
the examiner is not a motivation at all, but rather is a
statement of the result of making the proposed modification. A
statement of the result of making a modification is not a basis
for making the modification itself. In addition, even assuming
arguendo, that we combined the teachings of Brailean and
Rosenberg, we agree with appellants (brief, page 5) that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007