Appeal No. 2002-1453
Application No. 09/160,790
Rejection at Issue
Claims 1-4, 16, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being anticipated by Yonemitsu.
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejection and the arguments of Appellant
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-4, 16, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant argues that Yonemitsu fails to teach or suggest a
decoding method and apparatus where resizing of an image frame is
achieved by transforming, according to an inverse discrete cosine
transform (IDCT), said resized DCT coefficient block to produce
said pixel block having said second resolution, said step of
transforming utilizing DCT basis functions adapted in response to
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007