Appeal 2007-1251
Application 09/451,097
Claims 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Takashima.
Claims 1 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Takashima in view of Nagasaka.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed August 22, 2006) and to
Appellant's Brief (filed December 15, 2005) and Reply Brief (filed
October 10, 2006) for the respective arguments.
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse both the anticipation
rejection of claim 37 and also the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 27.
We also enter a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claim 37.
OPINION
Regarding claim 37, the Examiner asserts (Answer 3) that Takashima
discloses the step of calculating statistics of motion vector information, as
recited in claim 37, "as provided by motion estimation circuit 103 of Figure
11, since scene changes are detected by exploiting of motion vector
detection operations performed by motion estimation circuit 103, with the
exploiting of motion vectors providing the calculating of statistics of motion
vector information." Appellant contends (Br. 7) that Takashima does not
disclose calculating statistics of motion vectors, since finding a motion
vector is not the same as calculating statistics of motion vectors. Further,
Appellant contends (Reply Br. 2) that "'[e]xploit' means to use to one's
advantage, not to 'calculate statistics,' and Takashima in no manners suggests
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013