Appeal No. 2001-0925
Application No. 08/897,401
The obviousness rejection of claims 19 and 27 is reversed
because we agree with the appellants’ argument (brief, page 11)
that “[n]one of the cited references teach or suggest reading
image data into a buffer before applying filters . . . . ”
The obviousness rejection of claims 20, 28 and 36 is
reversed because the examiner’s reasoning (answer, pages 8
through 10) falls far short of a convincing line of reasoning for
modifying the filter library disclosed by Le Gall to correspond
to the specifically recited filter library in the claims on
appeal.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 17 through
36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claims 17, 21 through
25 and 29 through 35, and is reversed as to claims 18 through 20,
26 through 28 and 36. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner
is affirmed-in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007