Appeal No. 2006-1240
Application No. 10/075,839
factual basis for its rejection of an application under sections
102 and 103.” In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ
785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The examiner may not, because of
doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation,
unfounded assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis for the rejection. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017, 154 USPQ at 178 (CCPA 1967).
After a review of Zhu, we disagree with the Examiner that the
process depicted in Figures 6-8 results in defining a stable field
based on the variation in the number of occurrences being within a
predefined bracket and based on a comparison of the number of
occurrences over two successive images. Zhu in col. 4, lines 32-37
states:
Majority Voter 225 scans through all the motion vectors in
the region R to pick the motion vector that is the most
representative in the region R. This process is described in
detail below. Such a motion vector is referred to as the
best matching vector Vbest.
Additionally, Zhu describes that this best matching vector
is obtained by taking the average of all the orientation angles
and the average of the magnitudes of all the motion vectors in
region R which, in turn, is compared with all the other vectors Vi
(col. 5, lines 10-18). Therefore, although some comparison of
the number of occurrences of the majority vector for obtaining
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007