Appeal 2007-1301
Application 09/924,322
reference, we do not find that claimed copying with respect to adder 330.
Chroma MC (1) is not of the converted pixel group in 4:2:0 format. Nor do
we find that the adder performs a copying function with respect to the signal
from IDCT 315, but rather an “adding” function.
With respect to adder 345, we do appreciate that the converted signal
is fed back through switch 370 during the inter mode providing a reference
signal for Chroma MC(2) box 325. This signal is then fed through switch
327 to adder 345. However, this signal is subtracted in the adder (note the
“–“ sign by the adder in Figure 3). In Column 11, line 15 MC (2) is
described as the motion compensation unit for 4:2:0 data, and the signal is
described as reference image data provided to adder 345 (col. 11, line 14).
However, Appellants’ analysis (Reply Br. 6, top) that the result is the
difference between the current image data and the reference signal appears
accurate. (Note Chen, col. 12, ll. 1-7). We thus find that the Chen reference
does not teach the conversion being performed by a copy of the pixel group
of the previous image, as claimed.
Lim is cited for teaching that the decoding and the converting of the
signals may be performed in two steps. (Answer 7, bottom paragraph).
However, as Chen was not found to contain the basic teaching of “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,”
we need not address Appellants’ contentions with respect to the contents of
Lim or combining references. Claim 1 and the dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and
6 are found to be non-obvious over the cited prior art.
Independent claim 7 contains the same limitation quoted in the
previous paragraph, and for the reasons expressed above the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is found to be unfounded over the cited prior art.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013