Ex parte OTA et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 20, 2000

08027783 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 20, 2000)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte TAKAAKI OTA
and
MARK SCHAFFER
_____________
Appeal No. 1998-1325
Application No. 08/027,783
______________
HEARD: OCTOBER 12, 2000
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRY, and LEVY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 58.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for use in a video compression system that detects linear
Appeal No. 1998-1325
Application No. 08/027,783
2
motion in addition to other motions of video information.
Appeal No. 1998-1325
Application No. 08/027,783
3
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. Apparatus for use in a video compression system
having a motion vector generator for detecting linear
motion of video information from one video frame to
another and for generating motion vector data
representative thereof, and an intraframe spatial
redundancy processor for reducing video data
representing the video information within a video
frame, said apparatus comprising: rotation sensing
means for sensing rotation of video information from
a previous frame to a present frame; rotation vector
generating means for generating rotation vector data
representing a magnitude of the rotation sensed by
said rotation sensing means; and means for combining
said rotation vector data with said motion vector
data.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Kummerfeldt et al. (Kummerfeldt) 4,816,906 Mar. 28,
1989
Claims 1 through 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kummerfeldt.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 58 is
reversed.
Although Kummerfeldt discloses “translation (linear),
Appeal No. 1998-1325
Application No. 08/027,783
4
rotation (non-linear), expansion (zoom-out), and contraction
Appeal No. 1998-1325
Application No. 08/027,783
5
(zoom-in)” motions (Answer, page 4), we agree with the
appellants (Brief, pages 16 and 17) that:
One of ordinary skill in the art, after reading
and understanding Kummerfeldt, would not learn from
this reference that rotation motion or zoom motion
should be sensed in addition to linear motion, and
that rotation vector data or zoom vector data should
be generated. Nor would one learn from Kummerfeldt
how rotation (or zoom) motion should be sensed and
how rotation (or zoom) vector data should be
generated. Nor would one of ordinary skill learn
from the teachings of Kummerfeldt that such rotation
(or zoom) vector data should be combined with the
motion vector data that is generated from linear
motion sensing.
One of ordinary skill in the art simply would
learn from Kummerfeldt that motion from block to
block or from complex to complex is made up of
rotation, translation, expansion and contraction
(column 3, lines 12-14). It is urged that this
observation by Kummerfeldt is not sufficient to
enable one to generate separate translation and
rotation (or zoom) vectors and then combine those
separate vectors, as required by the claims . . . .
[Emphasis in original.]
Inasmuch as Kummerfeldt neither teaches nor would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art a combination of
linear motion vector data with other vector data, we agree
with appellants (Brief, page 27) that the examiner “has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.”
Appeal No. 1998-1325
Application No. 08/027,783
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED

)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 1998-1325
Application No. 08/027,783
7
FROMMER, LAWRENCE & HAUG
745 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10151