Appeal No. 2006-1605
Application No. 09/470,741
v. Dennison Mfg., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597
(Fed. Cir. 1987), cert denied, 481 U.S. 1052 (1987).
We note that independent claim 1 reads in part as follows:
“performing motion compensation for the downsampled
image in the spatial domain, the performing of the
motion compensation comprising scaling a motion vector
in accordance with a donwsampling ratio, the motion
vector specifying relative distance of reference data
from a macroblock”
Appellants’ specification indicates that the motion compensation
includes scaling a motion vector, and that motion compensation is
performed to compensate for the down-sampled image.
Particularly, at page 8, line 9 to page 9, line 9, Appellants’
specification states that:
“Therefore, one advantage of this approach is that it
provides greater flexibility. In such an embodiment, the
decoder software may transfer the downsampled prediction
error to the motion compensation hardware and the motion
vectors may be adjusted substantially in accordance with the
downsampling ratio, as explained hereinafter. In this
particular embodiment, although, again the invention is not
limited in scope in this respect, downsampling ratios of
1:1, 2:1, 4:1, and 8:1, along either of the horizontal,
vertical or both directions, may be supported. In this
particular embodiment, where MPEG2 is employed, the
downsampling ratio is limited to no more than 8:1 due to the
native eight-by-eight MPEG2 block size. However, this
limitation may not apply in alternative embodiments.
Furthermore, in alternative embodiments, even for MPEG2,
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007