Appeal 2007-1301
Application 09/924,322
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the Chen reference fails to show the claimed
limitation of “wherein, for a coded pixel group to be converted, if the
decoding mode is of the “inter” type with no residue, the conversion is
performed by a copy of a converted pixel group of a preceding image linked
by the motion vector associated with said coded pixel group.” (Emphasis
added.)
To be clear about this limitation, (See Medichem S. A. cited above.),
we appreciate from the specification that “a copy of a converted pixel
group” uses the word “copy” in its verb form. That is, we interpret the claim
as requiring that a “copy” function is performed replacing the instant pixel
group with a converted pixel group of a preceding image. We do not
interpret the word copy as a noun where the conversion is performed in
some way based upon a copy of a pixel group. (Our interpretation is
consistent with Specification, page 5, bottom paragraph; page 7, line 15).
With that understanding, we consider Chen, Figure 3, and Column 11,
lines 9-25. We notice that Chen performs a first step of decoding the video
signal in 4:2:2 format, in a variable length decoder (VLD) 305, as claimed.
Next, in the converter stage, the signal of the “current frame” is further
processed by an inverse quantizer Q1-1 310 and inverse discrete cosine
transform (IDCT) 315 and then provided to adder 330. In the adder,
(assuming “inter” mode”) that signal from 315 is combined with the output
of box 320 through switch 325. Box 320 is an MC(1) function, described as
motion compensation of the data in the 4:2:2 chroma 4:2:2P format,
provided along the motion vector (MV) from the VLD 305. Examiner reads
this process on “performing the conversion by copying a converted pixel
group of a preceding image”. However, after careful review of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013