Appeal No. 2006-1240
Application No. 10/075,839
used for comparison with each motion vector of the region (id.).
Appellants further assert that Zhu, in fact, compares each motion
vector in a region with the best matching vector so that the motion
vector may be adjusted accordingly (brief, page 4).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner relies on
Figure 5 of Zhu and argues that element 225 counts the number of
the majority vectors (col. 5, lines 9-55) through a majority voting
process, which is shown as arrows or dots, in case they are ignored
(answer, page 5). The Examiner further argues that, similar to
Appellants’ specification (page 9, lines 20-21), the stability
parameter is a binary setting of 1 or 0 which is set as 0 or Vbest
on the basis of the comparison (id.).
Initially, we note that a rejection for anticipation under
section 102 requires that the four corners of a single prior art
document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in
the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation.
See Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d
1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79,
31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). However, rejections based
on § 102 must rest on a factual basis wherein the burden of proof
is placed “on the Patent Office which requires it to produce the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007