Appeal No. 96-2379
Application 07/837,240
the location information of the next input data. However, based
on the disclosure in Comins that the dithering value can be
pseudo-random or randomly selected, the examiner concludes that
it does not matter how the dithering value is chosen and
therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill
in the art to have a dithering value which is dependent on the
location information of the next input data. We disagree.
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the
manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Obviousness may not be established
using hindsight or in view of the teachings of suggestions of the
inventor. Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, 73 F.3d
1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995). A teaching of
random selection does not equate to or reasonably suggests a
dithering value which is specifically dependent on something in
particular, in this case, the location information of the "next"
input data. The examiner has not demonstrated that Comins
discloses or would reasonably have suggested to one with ordinary
skill in the art that it would be desirable to have the dithering
value be dependent on the location information of the "next"
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007