Appeal No. 95-2848
Application 07/796,971
previously amended pixels and does not consider the relative
intensities of surrounding pixels at all. Additionally, the
Kojima technique would not enhance the performance of the
Kitamura device, and as pointed out by appellant, would likely
result in the edge pixels of Kitamura being less smooth rather
than more smooth. There would thus be no motivation to even
attempt to apply the pixel correction technique of Kojima to the
smoothing technique described by Kitamura.
For all the reasons just discussed, the record in this
case does not support the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 1 and 8. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1 and 8. Since claims 4, 5, 11 and 12 depend
from either claim 1 or claim 8, we also do not sustain the
rejection of these claims.
We now consider the rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9,
10, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
teachings of Kitamura, Kojima and Bantz. Appellant indicates
that these claims stand or fall together [brief, pages 5 and 9-
10]. These claims are all dependent claims which depend from
either claim 1 or claim 8. For reasons discussed above, the
invention of claims 1 and 8 is not suggested by the collective
teachings of Kitamura and Kojima. Therefore, the first question
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007