Appeal No. 95-2848
Application 07/796,971
to be considered is whether the teachings of Bantz overcome the
deficiencies present in the rejection of claims 1 and 8.
Bantz was cited only for its teaching of using a video
lookup table for acquiring anti-aliasing values to be used in
smoothing edge pixels. The lookup table is recited only in the
dependent claims. Bantz provides no teachings relevant to the
formation of first and second values related to the intensities
of different sets of pixels surrounding the pixel of interest.
Thus, we find nothing in Bantz which corrects the deficiencies in
the teachings of Kitamura and Kojima. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13
and 14 as proposed by the examiner based upon the record before
us.
In summary, we have not sustained either of the
rejections set forth by the examiner. Accordingly, the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1-14 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007