Appeal No. 1998-1334
Application No. 08/350,141
computing a mean pixel value of a block of a current frame.
Appellants point out that, equation 6 of Iu provides for
computing an average pixel over a series of accepted frames K.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is
the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 13662, 1369, 47
USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and limitation appearing in the specification
are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d
852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Upon reading Appellants’ claim 1 as a whole in light of
the specification, we agree that the claim does limit
computing the first mean value to a block in the current
frame. We find that Iu does not teach computing the first
mean value of a block in the current frame, but instead
teaches computing an average pixel over a series of accepted
frames K. Therefore, Iu’s equation 6 fails to meet
Appellants’ claimed method as recited in Appellants’ claim 1.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007