Appeal No. 96-2748
Application 08/008,813
Strolle is appellants’ earlier contribution in the art. The
disclosure herein reveals that the present application is said to
be an improvement over this earlier patent. The examiner’s
reliance upon Figure 6 of Strolle is appropriate to the subject
matter of independent claim 1 on appeal. The examiner’s basic
assertion is correct that this reference in this figure generates
a control signal representative of the amplitude level of the
high frequency portion of the luminance signal as claimed and
does, in fact, use this signal to reduce the amplitude level of
the high frequency portion of that signal. The claimed control
signal is the output from the level detector 504 feeding the
control input to the soft switch 508. However, the output from
the low pass filter 510 in Figure 6 is Lf which represents only
the folded luminance signal in its entirety. There is no
combination of the claimed control signal with the luminance
signal at the output of the overall circuit shown in Figure 6.
In contrast, Figure 2 of Strolle shows that the chrominance
signal is combined with a motion signal, M, and recorded.
However, this motion signal, a form of control signal like the
one set forth in representative claim 1 on appeal, does not
represent the amplitude level of the high frequency portion of
the luminance signal as required by claim 1.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007