Appeal No. 1996-0485 Page 9
Application No. 08/139,456
Sanders, nor Cook cures the aforementioned defect of
Admission. The examiner has not identified anything in these
references or the prior art as a whole that would have
suggested dithering image data in the YUV format before
quantizing the data.
Also regarding claims 1-21, the appellant makes the
following argument.
[A]ssuming for the purposes of argument that
Deacon's teaching is combined with that of the
"admitted" prior art, such combined teaching would
be to perform Deacon's color palette look-up
operation (step 74 of Deacon's Fig. 13) on RGB
display data after YUV-to-RGB conversion; not before
YUV-to-RGB conversion as in the claims on appeal.
(Appeal Br. at 15.)
In response, the examiner asserts, “it has been decided by the
[U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals] that the test for
obviousness is not whether the features of one reference may
be bodily incorporated into the structure of another, and
proper inquiry should not be limited to the specific structure
shown by the references, but should be into [sic] the concepts
fairly contained therein.” (Examiner’s Answer at 7-8.)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007