Appeal No. 2006-1240
Application No. 10/075,839
the best matching vector over two successive blocks or regions R
is performed, it is done after the decision step S530 (Figure 8)
wherein the absolute difference between the motion vector and the
vector profile is compared with a threshold (col. 6, lines 22-32).
There is nothing in Zhu to indicate that any stability
decision is made based on whether the variation in the number of
occurrences lies within a predefined bracket after the number of
occurrences is compared. The closest Zhu comes to this comparison
is by the majority voting process which takes place after a
comparison with the threshold value determines the best matching
vector (Figure 6; col. 5, lines 37-55). Therefore, we agree with
Appellants (brief, page 5) that the absence of the specific order
of claimed process steps in the reference indicates that Zhu is
not concerned with transmitting a stability parameter by
determining the variation in the number of occurrences after those
numbers over two successive images are compared.
We note that independent claim 11 also requires means for
performing similar steps which are absent in Zhu. As the
references cannot anticipate any of independent claims 1 and 11,
we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1 and
11, as well as claims 2, 3, 8, 9 and 12-14 dependent thereon over
Zhu.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007