Appeal No. 1997-1981
Application No. 08/298,547
a manner which would not detrimentally affect the image quality. Niehaus teaches the use
of a total unity gain (sum of the weights equals 1.00). (See Niehaus at col. 10.)
Appellants argue that Nakamura “only discusses calculation of the coefficients of
the generalized Parks-McClellan transform. It doesn’t even discuss image scaling or
determining coefficients based on estimated close to ideal frequency response.” (See
brief at page 6.) In our view, the specific coefficients and algorithm would have depended
on the specific filter and the use of that filter. Here, the language of claim 1 only sets forth
the broad area of image scaling which is taught by Niehaus.
Appellants argue that “[n]othing like this is found in any of these cited and applied
references.” (See brief at page 7.) The examiner responds with citations to the
appropriate applied references at page 7 of the answer and states that “[w]hile appellant
may not agree that these sections do not teach these limitations, the appellant has offered
no other interpretation of the references that may be valid.” We agree with the examiner.
The language of claim 1 is directed to a broad method of “forming an image scaling filter”
and the examiner has pointed out the relevant teachings in the prior art references and
motivation to combine the relevant teachings and suggestions. Appellants have not
provided any evidence to rebut this prima facie case of obviousness set forth by the
examiner. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007