Appeal No. 2006-1240
Application No. 10/075,839
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Zhu.
Claims 4-7, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zhu and Avis.
We make reference to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of Appellants and the Examiner.
OPINION
The main point of contention is based on whether the claimed
comparison over two successive images of the number of occurrences
of the majority vectors is the same as the comparison of each
motion vector with the best vector of Zhu. The Examiner equates
the claimed step of defining the stability of the fields as Step
S570 of Zhu (Figure 8) and asserts that the decision is based on a
stability parameter from the comparison step S330 (Figure 6) which
shows comparing the number of occurrences as the majority voting
process with a “THRESHOLD” value (answer, page 3).
Appellants argue that Figure 5 of Zhu relates to a motion
vector field of one image and is not the same as the claimed
comparing the number of occurrences of majority vectors within two
successive images (brief, page 4). Appellants further contrast
the motion vectors in Figure 5 of Zhu as having a single best
motion orientation per region R (col. 4, lines 51-60) which is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007