Appeal No. 2000-2066
Application No. 08/829,471
wherein the interpolating operation process, which is employed
in cases where, as result of said judgement, it has been judged
that the interpolation point belongs to a flat portion, is an
interpolating operation process, with which the sharpness of the
flat portion is rendered variable.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Perlmutter 4,876,509 Oct. 24, 1989
Sekine et al. (Sekine) 5,754,710 May 19, 1998
(filed Mar. 18, 1996)
Claim 8 stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Sekine. Claim 9 stands finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sekine in view of
Perlmutter.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejections advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support
for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments set
1 The Appeal Brief was filed November 5, 1999 (Paper No. 13). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated January 18, 1999 (Paper No. 15), a
Reply Brief was filed March 13, 2000 (Paper No. 16), which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner in the communication dated March 30, 2000 (Paper
No. 18).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007