Appeal 2007-1301
Application 09/924,322
performed by a copy of a converted pixel group of a preceding image linked
by the motion vector associated with said coded pixel group.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kato US 5,701,164 Dec. 23, 1997
Chen US 6,259,741 B1 Jul. 10, 2001
Lim US 6,333,952 B1 Dec. 25,2001
Rejections:
Claims 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
being obvious over Chen in view of Lim.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for being obvious over
Chen and Lim in view of Kato.
Appellants submit that the claims 2, 3 ,5, and 6 stand or fall
together with claim 1. (Br. 12.)
Appellants contend that the claimed subject matter is not rendered
obvious by Chen alone, or in combination with Lim or Kato, for reasons to
be discussed more fully below.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013