Appeal 2007-1301
Application 09/924,322
Independent claim 8 contains a limitation differently worded from that
of the previous claims. Claim 8 addresses a process for format conversion
of an image sequence “wherein, in the case where the complementary data
pertaining to a pixel group and to a given resolution have zero value, this
pixel group for the converted image of given resolution is obtained from a
group of converted pixels of the image of lower resolution.” (Emphasis
added.) The limitation of copying a pixel group of a preceding image is not
present; instead it was replaced by the broader “is obtained from” limitation,
which only requires some connection to the converted pixels. As mentioned
in the Specification, page 12, line 17+, this resolution mode may be viewed
as inter coding mode. The Examiner states that in Chen (Answer 17, top)
when the converter 300 (Figure 3) is analyzed, the converted image “is
obtained from” the converted pixels as the converted pixels are fed back and
influence the conversion process. We do not find error in that reasoning,
and we thus find that the rejection of Claim 8 is supported by the cited prior
art.
Claim 4 was rejected separately from claims 1 to 3 and 5 to 8, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 (a), for being obvious over Chen and Lin in view of Kato.
Kato is cited for teaching that the coding mode is determined from the
“skipped macroblock” or “uncoded” mode. (Answer 26, middle.).
However, claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and is subject to the limitation of
“performed by a copy of a preceding image”. Thus for the same reasons
expressed with regard to claim 1, we do not find that the Chen reference
supports the rejection.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013