Appeal No. 1996-3621
Application No. 08/019,783
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Searby 4,611,232 Sept. 9,
1986
Tabata et al. (Tabata) 4,618,991 Oct. 21,
1986
Aoki 4,712,185 Dec.
8, 1987
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, 15, 20, 21, 26, 27, 30 and 31
stand rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which appellant regards as
the invention.
Claims 1, 4 through 7, 10 through 13, 16 through 19, 22
through 25, 28, 29 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Tabata in view of Searby and Aoki.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answers for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
All of the rejections are reversed.
Turning first as we must to the indefiniteness rejection,
the examiner states (Answer, page 4) that:
In each of these claims recitation is made to
“interpolating” the image data by a factor (such as
2 or 4). However, the process recited as being
“interpolation” actually appears to be a recitation
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007